NewsFollowUp.com

Franklin Scandal Omaha

search

archives

sitemap home
   
 

This page not updated Go to Obama home page

free hit counter javascript

=go to NFU pages

 

 

 

  • below Go to Summary &
  • Obama, Emanuel members of gay bath house, blackmail?
  • Go to Obama Rothschild Timeline
  • Madsen - Sinclair interview excerpt file Aug 7, 2010 MP3
  • Levine / Weinstein indictment page
  • National Press Club, Aug 2010, Larry Sinclair discussion, more  & 2008
  • Blagojevich trial: Zagel suppression of Obama bisexual evidence.  more
  • the Purple Hotel WMR has learned that the Purple Hotel .... weekday afternoon parties were attended by Rezko, Levine, and Obama.  MORE
  • WMR: Emanual's free-rent 'play condo'   owned by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, wired for blackmail, search: Stanley Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, Emanuel, Bill Clinton on tape in trysts and other 'extracurricular activities'.   Go to  or more  and
  • Whitehouse.com Parisi / Sinclair lawsuit, Patton Boggs, Amazon more
  • Dr. Eric E. Whitaker, MD, MPH, is tied to an Illinois state investigation of improper use of funds....   Obama traveling companion
  • Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Bush blackmail Obama (below), Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Down Low Club, audio tapes, cocaine, homosexual, blackmailing Obama, blackmailed     and  Soros  page
  • Blagojevich trial audio tapes contain Obama / Emanuel gay evidence, Why does Fitzgerald / Zagel want them suppressed? more below,  and page
  • Alexi Giannoulias search terms: family mob bank,, Broadway Bank seized, Michael 'Jaws' Giorango, Mark Kirk, Mike Rogers, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Rezko, East Bank Club, State Treasurer, more below

     

 

 

BARACK

H.

OBAMA

THE

UNAUTHORIZED

BIOGRAPHY

Webster Griffin Tarpley

2008

BARACK H. OBAMA: THE UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY

Copyright © Webster Griffin Tarpley, 2008

All Rights Reserved

Published by Progressive Press

P.O. Box 126, Joshua Tree, Calif. 92252,

www.ProgressivePress.com

Length: 264,000 words.

Typeset left-justified in 11 pt. Times New Roman, for optimum value and ease of reading.

Classification: Nonfiction, Politics, Biography

ISBN: 0-930852-91-5. EAN: 978-0-930852-91-7

DIGITAL

ADVANCE

REVIEW

EDITION

September 2008

Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Tarpley, Webster Griffin

Barack H. Obama: the unauthorized biography / Webster Griffin Tarpley

ISBN-13: 978-0-930852-91-7 (Digital), 978-0-930852-81-8 (Offset edition)

1. Obama, Barack. 2. Presidential candidates – United States.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION: OBAMA FROM THE FORD FOUNDATION TO THE TRILATERAL

COMMISSION..............................................................................................................................4

CHAPTER I: OBAMA’S ROOTS IN POLYGAMY AND THE FORD FOUNDATION..............12

CHAPTER II: COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND RECRUITMENT BY ZBIGNIEW

BRZEZINSKI ..............................................................................................................................37

CHAPTER III: FOUNDATION-FUNDED RACISM IN CHICAGO: JEREMIAH WRIGHT AND

MICHELLE .................................................................................................................................91

CHAPTER IV: APPRENTICESHIP WITH FOUNDATION-FUNDED TERRORISTS: AYERS

AND DOHRN............................................................................................................................134

CHAPTER V: OBAMA’S HEART OF DARKNESS: REZKO, AUCHI, ALSAMMARAE, AND

CHICAGO GRAFT....................................................................................................................182

CHAPTER VI: GRABBING A SENATE SEAT WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM HIS

TRILATERAL FRIENDS..........................................................................................................215

CHAPTER VII: THE HOPE POPE AND HIS TRILATERAL MONEY MACHINE..................265

CHAPTER VIII: “OUR SOULS ARE BROKEN” – “FEEL, DON’T THINK! BE VISCERAL!” –

MICHELLE OBAMA, POSTMODERN FASCIST IDEOLOGUE.............................................287

CHAPTER IX: OBAMA’S TRIUMPH OF THE WILL: THE 2008 PRIMARIES .....................309

CHAPTER X: OBAMA: A LOOMING WORLD TRAGEDY ...................................................369

CHAPTER XI: OBAMA AS SOCIAL FASCIST.......................................................................393

APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................................415

NOTES ......................................................................................................................................426

INTRODUCTION: OBAMA FROM THE FORD

FOUNDATION TO THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION

You know, I’ve come to the conclusion that poverty is closer to the root of the problem than

color. – Robert F. Kennedy, 1968

This book marks my first foray into the field of presidential candidate biography since the

publication of my George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (1992). I have been impelled to

return to the business of presidential candidate biography by a profound sense of alarm and national

emergency, because of the threat to the American people and to the future survival of the world

posed by the Trilateral Commission puppet and Manchurian candidate, Barack Hussein Obama.

During the early months of 2008, I issued a series of articles which analyzed the dynamics of

Obama’s postmodern coup d’état from the standpoint of comparing the Illinois Messiah’s lemming

legions and Kool-Aid cult fanatic following with the incipient and inchoate fascist movement which

coalesced around the young Benito Mussolini between 1919 and 1922, in a period of crisis similar

to the one we are traversing today. These articles were supplemented by a theoretical introduction

restating the basic characteristics of a fascist mass movement, and also by an extended comparison

between Obama’s campaign platform and the record in office of Jimmy Carter, who is the most

recent example of a puppet president controlled by the Trilateral-Rockefeller banking elite. I also

benefited from valuable contributions from my friends Bruce Marshall and Jonathan Mowat.

The resulting book was entitled Obama the Postmodern Coup: the Making of a Manchurian

Candidate, and was offered to the public for the first time on Monday, April 7, 2008, thanks to the

superlative efforts of the eminent publisher John Leonard of Progressive Press in California. Our

original intention had been to include a biography of the mystery candidate Barack Hussein Obama,

but in the end we decided that it was better to issue a first volume well in advance of the April 22

Pennsylvania primary. Now, a few months later, we are delivering a second installment in the

continuing process of exposing and unmasking the enigmatic Messiah Obama. We ask for the

reader’s indulgence for the fact that this book had to be assembled in haste, but we are confident

that it contains the concepts necessary to understanding the threat posed by Obama, from the

standpoint of elementary class consciousness.

THE ONLY STUDY BASED ON AN EXPLICIT CLASS ANALYSIS

OF ELITISTS VS. WORKING PEOPLE

The 2008 campaign has been remarkable for having had the great merit of focusing attention on

the issue of class, elitism, and oligarchy, with Obama furnishing the obvious villain on the elitist

side. This book is a product of the anti-oligarchical or American school of historical writing. The

analysis is conducted from the standpoint of the New Deal tradition. Class consciousness as used

here means first of all the method exemplified by Plato in his Republic, above all awareness of the

abuses of the one (tyranny), the few (oligarchy), and the many (mob rule or ochlocracy). Our world

is generally a world of oligarchy, which is now threatening to pass through an interlude of mob rule

and then into tyranny. This book is also based on the class analysis of Machiavelli’s Discourses,

which is infinitely superior to that of Marx. In Machiavelli’s terms, the Obama campaign is a

project of the nobility (gentiluomini) and the urban bankers (ottimati or patrizi, in Britain as well as

the US) to mobilize the city mob, especially excitable youth (plebe) against the middle class

(popolo), under extreme crisis conditions. This book is also founded on the experience of the

Introduction: Obama from the Ford Foundation to the Trilateral Commission 5

Franklin D. Roosevelt New Deal as the most recent successful historical model in how to organize

the American people to deal with a world economic depression.

A critical unauthorized biography of Senator Barack Hussein Obama is all the more urgent today

because nothing competent in this line has been forthcoming so far. Back in 1991, when I began

writing the unauthorized biography of George Bush the elder, I found that the biographical literature

about the candidate was rather limited. There was a campaign biography from 1980, a campaign

biography from 1988, and some biographical essays for 1992. These had all been generated from

Bush family documents and printouts. There were also a limited number of critical studies, which

were either very brief, incomplete, or useless for other reasons. Another biography of Bush the

Elder which appeared after the election turned out to be just another cover-up. But all in all, the

biographical literature was relatively limited, and there were no real autobiographies, memoirs or

books written by the candidate.

With Obama, the picture is radically different. Obama is a word-monger. The candidate himself

claims to be the author of not one but two books, although it is clear that he has had much help from

the ghost-writing staff of the Trilateral-Bilderberg combine. The first is a long autobiographical

memoir entitled Dreams from My Father, which Obama sent into the world back in 1995. This

book documents Obama’s obsession with the polygamous Kenyan father who showed no interest in

him, with race and racism, and above all with himself. It is a document which already suggests that

the author is not just a racist, but also a deeply troubled existentialist megalomaniac, since it is

surely a rare man who writes his own autobiography before he has reached the age of 35, when he

still has accomplished absolutely nothing. This is the book which we define as Obama’s

postmodern Mein Kampf. Obama is also the author of a more conventional catalog of campaignoriented

political positions The Audacity of Hope, with its title drawn from one of the ranting

sermons of Obama’s racist guru and hatemeister, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

1995: DREAMS FROM MY FATHER – OBAMA’S POSTMODERN MEIN KAMPF

The first time I heard Obama speak, the first words that passed through my mind were, “slippery

as an eel.” This is the main problem with the things that Obama himself has written, as well as with

his campaign in general. Both books written by Obama make it their primary business to deceive

the reader, for obvious purposes of political gain. Dreams is designed to mislead about the

candidate himself, while The Audacity of Hope seeks to muddy the waters concerning his political

ideas and policies. Far too often the audacity of hope that we are promised turns out to be nothing

more than the mendacity of dope, on the part of a candidate whose mental impairment owing to

narcotics abuse during his college years is certainly comparable to that of the notorious George W.

Bush — as we can see in Obama’s striking inability to speak coherently in the absence of the glass

plates of a Teleprompter sitting in front of his nose.

The Audacity of Hope has been described by the reactionary Ann Coulter as Obama’s dime-store

Mein Kampf. This is accurate in at least one way, since both books deal with the quest for racial

identity and the need to overcome the various barriers to the assertion of that identity. Well before

Miss Coulter had come on the scene, I had published an article on the Internet referring to Obama’s

postmodern Mein Kampf, which represents a more exact description of Obama’s actual ideology

and world outlook, which is that of an existentialist reader of the Third World pro-terrorist

ideologue, Frantz Fanon. Obama’s book is also an attempt to capitalize on the popularity of Alex

Haley’s Roots. Obama’s memoir may thus be described as Roots lite, but with the identity trip being

carried out by a Fanon-style existentialist.

6 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

THE MENDACITY OF DOPE

But the books by Obama himself are only the beginning of the cloud of obfuscation and deception

which envelops the Perfect Master. There are easily two dozen biographical studies of the Illinois

Senator, and they are almost without exception characterized by fawning adulation, adolescent hero

worship, and messianic hagiography. They add up to so many versions of the Life and Miracles of

St. Barack the Good. I have found it easy to dispense with the vast majority of these meretricious

and venal little books. One or two exceptions do stand out: there is, for example, Shelby Steele, a

kind of black neocon, who makes many intelligent observations about Obama’s character.

Then there are the hard-line neocon critics of Obama. Some of them have managed to perform

an important public service by forcing the odious figures of the gangster Tony Rezko, the Reverend

Jeremiah Wright, the terrorist William Ayers, and the terrorist Bernardine Dohrn — all of whom

belong to Obama’s immediate social circle — into the public eye in the face of hysterical opposition

by NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the other assorted media whores

for Obama. But, for any task of analysis more complicated than the straight exposing and outing of

Obama’s rogues’ gallery of personal friends and associates, the neocon methods break down and

often lapse into absurdity. The biggest absurdities are that Obama is really a Moslem, or else that

Obama is really a Marxist AND Communist.

We state emphatically here at the outset: Obama is a creature and puppet of finance capital and

of the Wall Street bankers and investment bankers, as represented by the Trilateral Commission,

Bilderberger Group, Council on Foreign Relations, Skull and Bones Society, Ford Foundation, and

Chicago School of Friedmanite economics. The family business which Obama inherited from his

mother (a Ford Foundation anthropologist and counterinsurgency operative who also worked for the

World Bank and the US Agency for International Development) was to work for foundations. And

this is what Obama has done in his life, working at various times for or with the Gamaliel

Foundation, the Woods Fund, the Joyce Foundation, the Annenberg Foundation, and other

foundations and entities which notoriously look to the Ford Foundation for guidance and leadership.

Obama is best described as a foundation-bred counterinsurgent, that is to say an operative in the

service of the US financier ruling class whose task it is to wreck and abort any positive outcomes

that might be forthcoming from the political ferment which is shaking the globe, and above all from

the deep political upsurge which is clearly at hand in this country.

Obama claims to be a uniter, but the simplest empirical survey will show that he is the most

explosive divider seen in this country in decades, since he has succeeded in splitting both the

Democratic Party and the US population in general according to the classic fault lines of white

against black, black against Hispanic, black against Asian, black against Jewish, men against

women, old against young, rich against poor. Having seen Obama accomplish all of this in less

than a year and a half on the campaign trail, we can confidently predict that an Obama presidency

would in all probability put the United States well on its way to civil war. Giving Obama and his

financier controllers the White House would represent an act of national suicide for this country,

with the most catastrophic implications for the world as a whole. This analysis is corroborated by

the fact that Obama, alone among all the protagonists of the 2008 presidential contest, possesses

either a postmodern fascist mass movement, or a very plausible facsimile thereof. These are the

lemming legions who are not supporting a program of measures that the government might take, but

who are hysterically loyal to and obsessed with Obama as a fantasy figure and charismatic savior –

in other words, as an emerging fascist leader. As those who lived through Italy in 1922 and

Germany in 1933 remind us in the writings they have left behind, there is simply no comparison

between a normal, corrupt, bourgeois parliamentary regime and a fascist seizure of power. These

Introduction: Obama from the Ford Foundation to the Trilateral Commission 7

are qualitatively distinct, and set Obama apart from all of his competitors in a way that we can only

ignore at our own very great peril.

The only way to conduct a satisfactory analysis of the Obama agitation is to use a class

standpoint, rather than a racial criterion or an outlook based on gender. Obama is an operative for

the finance oligarchs. The Democratic Party bureaucracy is supporting Obama and opposing

Senator Clinton because this is the decree of Wall Street, the Trilateral Commission, the

Bilderberger group, the Ford Foundation, Skull and Bones, the Chicago School, the Council on

Foreign Relations, and other ruling class institutions. The Democratic Party bosses like Howard

Dean and Donna Brazile are not supporting Obama because they care about what happens to black

voters. The Democratic Party has proved repeatedly that it cares nothing whatever about the fate of

black voters. At the same time, it is very naïve to assume that the explanation for the slander

campaign of the controlled corporate media against Hillary Clinton is that the media whores for

Obama are motivated by misogyny and hatred of women. That may be a factor in individual cases,

but the main reason the controlled media are vilifying Senator Clinton is that they have been

ordered by their Wall Street paymasters to do so. The main issues in this contest are class issues,

and not racial or gender issues. Blue-collar working-class voters are not generally opposed to

Obama because of race, but rather because they can sense in his elitism and condescension that he is

a candidate loyal solely to the dictates of the financiers.

The phalanx of right-wing radio commentators who call themselves conservatives is attempting

to portray Obama as an ultraliberal, “the most liberal senator in the Democratic Party,” according to

a study produced by National Journal. This is a very weak, tired, unconvincing way to deal with

Obama, and it is ultimately a loser. This is not very scary, and to do justice to the horrifying reality

of the Obama threat, it ought to be very scary indeed. To say that Obama is a liberal, as Rush

Limbaugh incessantly does, is to say that he is just more of the same, from the same tired old

playbook of Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. If Obama is just the latest liberal and there is

nothing new under the sun, then ho-hum. This approach fatally underestimates how radically

different and how extremely dangerous Obama really is. Sean Hannity does a little better with his

mantra of “Stop the radical.” But it soon turns out that this means radical liberal, which is also not

going to launch a thousand ships against Obama.

The first instinct of most right-wingers is to look at Obama’s middle name of Hussein, and

perhaps at his Moslem father and step-father and at his time in school in Indonesia, and announce

that Obama is a Moslem. But this will hardly do. Obama’s father and step- father were united not by

the Koran, but rather by their shared devotion to Johnny Walker, which increased as they got older.

And if Obama himself were a secularized Moslem, so what? Voters have a right to know Obama’s

religious history in full detail, but there is no religious test for office. But Obama is something very

sinister indeed. Obama himself is either an atheist, or much more likely a Satanist of the apostate

Jeremiah Wright-James Cone-black liberation theology school, a Christian heresy which places

racist hatred instead of charity at the center of its edifice of faith. Wright is ultimately the high priest

of a death cult. Obama is, more precisely, an existentialist fascist made of equal parts 1969

Weatherman race war theory and Frantz Fanon’s cult of violent Third World rebellion. This is what

low-income blue collar voters in West Virginia have understood far better than all the effete snobs

who profess postmodernism at Harvard.

The other approach is to paint Obama as a Marxist and communist, in the Cold War McCarthyite

tradition. Here is an article by Dana Milbank, a decadent member of Skull and Bones who frequents

the Keith Olberman Grand Guignol propaganda show on MSNBC-Obamavision, also known as the

Brzezinski network. Milbank is a cynical cataloguer of the politically grotesque. The following is

8 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Milbank’s satire of a group of aging and rabid neocons who gathered recently in a Washington café

to review the evidence that Obama was a communist, a Marxist, and a subversive. This group,

assembled by America’s Survival Inc., met in the basement of Ebenezer Coffee House at Second

and F streets NE. Milbank writes:

Here are some things we can look forward to learning about Barack Obama: that he was

mentored in high school by a member of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party; that he

launched his Illinois state Senate campaign in the home of a terrorist and a killer; that while

serving as a state senator, he was a member of a socialist front group; that his affiliations are so

dodgy that he would have trouble getting a government security clearance; that there is reason

to doubt his “loyalty to the United States.” “We believe that any public figure with links to

foreign and hostile interests should be asked to explain those associations,” the organizer, Cliff

Kincaid, told about two dozen conservatives and a few reporters. “In the case of Obama, a

relatively new figure on the national scene, we submit the facts suggest that he would have

serious difficulty getting a security clearance in the United States government. An FBI

background check was once used to examine one’s character, loyalty to the United States, and

associations.” “He’s a member of an organization [that is] openly a front for two socialist

groups,” reported another participant, Trevor Loudon. “Obama was raised and educated in a

very Marxist-rich environment, which often would limit his worldview,” reported a third, Max

Friedman. But the star of the show was the ancient Herbert Romerstein, who once plied his

trade for the Un-American Activities committee. “We decided to start going back and seeing

what things influenced him even before he was born,” Romerstein announced without a trace of

irony, before tying Obama to the Communist Party of the 1930s in Hawaii and Soviet spies on

the island. “This is the atmosphere that young Barack Obama grew up in.” The smoking gun?

Obama’s “mentor” during his teens, according to Kincaid, was “a key member of a Sovietcontrolled

network that was sponsored by Moscow and active in Hawaii.” “The Weather

Underground terrorists,” Romerstein added, “were instrumental in getting him into office in the

first place.” “It’s clear that the communists and the socialists are backing him,” Kincaid

confirmed. It was beginning to sound like a UFO convention. But the panelists took it seriously,

firing questions back at the audience. “Was Barack Obama working for Bill Ayers?” Kincaid

wondered aloud. Romerstein demanded: “How come for 20 years he sat in the pews and

listened to a raving anti-American racist? How did he bring his two young children to this

church to hear Wright rave on?” The evidence was compelling enough for participant Friedman.

For him, the Rosetta Stone was Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, who Friedman alleged

was the protégé of a man with “a Communist Party-front record” in Chicago. “The more I look

at this, I’m seeing there are a lot of red-diaper babies around here,” he deduced. “By putting

these pieces of the puzzle together, I’m beginning to see something much bigger.” (Dana

Milbank, “Obama as You’ve Never Known Him!” Washington Post, May 23, 2008.)

This treatment shows how easy it is for a lightweight elitist scribbler like Milbank to satirize

these neocon critics of Milbank’s Perfect Master. Even a superficial flack like Milbank has no

trouble making these poor neocons look like relics from the hated and notorious House Un-

American Activities Committee who are daring to pollute the sublime dream of today’s golden

youth.

Obama has only the vaguest echoes of his mother’s vague devotion to old Karl Marx (the British

agent whose case officer was David Urquhart of the British Foreign Office). Obama is most

emphatically a product of the foundations and their cult of social manipulation and political

subversion, but always in the service of a social order centered on Wall Street. Obama is himself an

Introduction: Obama from the Ford Foundation to the Trilateral Commission 9

operative of finance capital at the highest level. If his hardware comes from the Ford Foundation

where his mother was employed, Obama’s software comes from the Trilateral Commission, the

Bilderberger group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the RAND Corporation, Skull and Bones, the

Chicago school of economics – in other words, the highest levels of the Anglo-American financier

oligarchy. If Mussolini started off as an agent of the British and French embassies and of certain

Venetian financiers, and Hitler began his career as an agent for German military intelligence,

Obama’s pedigree is the complex of institutions we have just stated. Obama is connected to Wall

Street by a million adamantine threads. Obama’s main controller, guru, adviser, and handler is none

other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who ran the catastrophic Trilateral administration of

Jimmy Carter thirty years ago. Such is the reality of Obama as he emerges from these pages.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND IS INDISPENSABLE

In order to understand Obama and the congeries of foundation-funded racist and terrorist

provocateurs and international gangsters who represent his immediate social circle, some significant

historical background is indispensable. Obama’s mother worked for the Ford Foundation, and

Obama has worked for foundations like the Gamaliel, the Joyce, the Woods, and the Annenberg

Chicago Challenge all his life. But what do foundations do? Emphatically, they do not practice good

works of charity; they deal in cynical social and political manipulation in the service of the ruling

class. So it is necessary to explain the strategic doctrine which has governed the activities of the US

foundation community since the 1960s, especially in the framework of Reagan’s Executive Order

12333, which privatized the US intelligence community into front companies, law firms, and

especially foundations.

The public now knows that Obama attended Jeremiah Wright’s church, where the incendiary

doctrine of black liberation theology, a school atypical of the black church, is proclaimed. But

where do Wright and his sidekicks Otis Moss III and Dwight Hopkins come from? Are they an

authentic and spontaneous expression of the black church, or are they controlled assets deployed in

a cynical divide-and-conquer strategy by foundations and divinity schools that represent the most

parasitical interests in Wall Street? The historical approach is the only way to clarify these issues.

Obama claims to be an apostle of bipartisan cooperation and the transcendence of legislative

wrangling and haggling. His background in this regard is real, but it is not what the public thinks.

Obama is a product of the infamous Illinois bipartisan Combine, a joint venture by the Illinois

Republican and Democratic Parties to savagely loot the people of that state. Obama’s godfathers

include not just corrupt machine pols like Mayor Daley and Governor Blagojevich, but also the

Levantine gangsters and underworld figures Rezko, Auchi, and Alsammarae, all part of what the

FBI has been probing under the heading of Operation Board Games. Obama’s bosom buddy Rezko

is now a convicted felon, having been found guilty on June 5, 2008 on 16 of 24 counts in Chicago

federal court, including for scheming to get kickbacks out of money-management firms wanting

state business, and a contractor who wanted to build a hospital in northern Illinois. Auchi and

Alsammarae are also convicted felons. Obama’s long history in graft and corruption make him the

most corrupt and dirtiest presidential candidate in many decades.

Americans have now been told that the 1960s Weatherman terrorist bombers and provocateurs

(and foundation operatives) Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn have sponsored Obama’s career as a

foundation asset and later as a holder of elective office. But what were the Weathermen? And, were

Ayers and Dohrn honest revolutionaries who chose terrorism, or were they intelligence community

operatives sent in to destroy the student movement and peace movement by taking over Students for

10 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

a Democratic Society (SDS) in the wake of the New York City teachers’ strike, and then scuttling

SDS from within, in a matter of months? Only historical background can clarify the question of how

Obama’s penchant for associating with known criminals makes him the most radical subversive

ever to get this close to the presidency.

The public is being urged to regard Obama as a politician of phenomenal organizational ability

because of his ability to game the absurd rules of the Democratic Party. But what if Obama had

been a protected asset of Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Trilateral Commission since about 1981-

1983, and a man whose entire career has been fostered and promoted by the Trilateral-Bilderberger

Wall Street group? What if Obama’s campaign ran on Rockefeller-Soros Trilateral cash, with the

backing of the matchless Trilateral network of media whores and agents of influence? Here again,

adequate historical background is necessary.

The last time that the Trilateral Commission fielded a relatively unknown puppet with the goal

of seizing power through an insurgency based on surprise, the result was the catastrophic presidency

of Jimmy Carter, who turned foreign affairs over to Brzezinski, while placing economic policy in

the hands of Trilateral agent Paul Adolph Volcker, who destroyed what was left of the US industrial

economy. Today Obama is attempting to profile himself as something of an economic populist.

Only an appeal to history can show how today’s Trilateral puppet Obama will go beyond

yesterday’s Trilateral puppet Carter, this time imposing austerity in the name of third world

solidarity, sacrifice in the name of global warming, and perhaps even reparations for racism. As

with Carter, the beneficiaries will be the Rockefeller-Soros Wall Street interests.

Obama promises hope and change, but his campaign bears uncanny similarities to the early days

of Italian fascism in 1919-1922. Only historical background can show the many parallels between

Obama and the young Mussolini.

This book is not an invitation to contemplation. It is a call to mobilize. At this writing, we are at

the half-way point in a postmodern fascist coup in the United States. There is still time to prevent

this coup from succeeding.

In January 1933, just before Hitler seized power, people in Germany were as careworn and

overwhelmed and overstressed as many Americans feel today. A combination of bankers and

corporate chiefs had decided they needed more than a dictator; they needed a dictator with his own

private army of street fighters, the storm troopers. The Social Democrats (the SPD) were a huge

mass party backed up by trade unions, sports clubs, women’s groups, and their own self-defense

corps, but they dithered and dawdled and talked about a general strike, and never did anything. The

communists (the KPD) were also a large mass party, with a big organization of unemployed

workers, and their own self-defense corps of armed veterans. But the communists were convinced

that they had been living under fascism for a long time, and that the Social Democrats were really

social fascists and therefore even worse than Hitler. So nobody called a general strike to stop Hitler

when this would have been possible. Many of the SPD and KPD leaders who refused to mobilize

against the National Socialist seizure of power soon had to flee the country when their parties were

outlawed and their members expelled from the parliament by the Nazis. Many of those who stayed

behind were either assassinated in the streets, or died in concentration camps. Perhaps we can learn

something from this chilling example of the importance of mobilizing while mobilization is still

possible.

If this book attracts some readers, the Obama campaign will inevitably attempt to vilify me as a

racist. I therefore state formally that I am not a racist, but just the opposite. I am convinced that race

is a mystification with no scientific basis whatsoever. Politics and government based on race are

Introduction: Obama from the Ford Foundation to the Trilateral Commission 11

sure to fail. My own standpoint is the universality of the human personality, with all persons being

ontologically equal. I lived the first years of my life in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, a town

which, thanks in part to a large population of abolitionists living there, had largely achieved racial

integration in the decades following the Civil War. I lived on the same street where W.E.B. DuBois

had grown up by the Housatonic River and close to the integrated school he attended c.1870.1 I later

lived in Flushing, New York, a part of north Queens which had been the site of the first formal

demand for religious tolerance in North America – the Flushing Remonstrance of 1657. In the

1950s, this community was thoroughly integrated down to my Cub Scout troop, where the den

mother was Mrs. Andrew Jenkins, a black lady and the mother of one of my friends. Flushing was

so tolerant that, around the time of the New York World’s Fair of 1964, it began to attract residents

from the Far East, and now hosts a large Chinese community. So I reject any charge of racism. At

the same time, I reject the absurd taboos which the bankrupt ideologues of foundation-style

multiculturalism and political correctness are seeking to impose, since these are forms of insidious

class prejudice against the working people of all races in this country. In many ways, this book

continues the critique of foundation-based multiculturalism from a New Deal standpoint which was

offered by the late Arthur M. Schlesinger in his The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a

Multicultural Society. Those who actually read this book will be able to evaluate my argument that

racism in the United States today is very largely the product of a deliberate and cynical divide-andconquer

policy carried forward above all by the foundations and by the oligarchs and elitists who

control them – that is to say, by precisely those groups who have created Obama. We need a return

to the New Deal and a Marshall Plan for the cities, not another fruitless discussion about race of the

kind proposed by Obama. To finish off racism, we will need full employment, something which has

hardly been seen in this country since 1945. Full employment is also the key to solving most of the

problems associated with the flows of immigrants from Latin America and Asia, since a return to

economic progress will immediately create a labor shortage that will put these issues in the proper

perspective. To obtain an economic recovery for the benefit of all the people from the present Bush

world economic depression, we will need updated versions of New Deal programs, and on the way

to getting them we will need to break the power of the foundations, who will attempt to maintain the

fragmentation and subjection of the US population by every means at their disposal. This book, it is

hoped, will represent a step towards exposing the destructive elitist manipulation of society by the

foundations and the sinister intentions of the leading foundation operative on the scene today,

Obama.

CHAPTER I: OBAMA’S ROOTS IN POLYGAMY AND THE

FORD FOUNDATION

How can I refuse the best education? – Barack Hussein Obama Senior

For many Americans, Barack Hussein Obama is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

Never in recent American history has a candidate so little known approached the presidency. The

only recent comparison is offered by Jimmy Carter, and Carter — who had served as governor of

Georgia for four years — was an open book in comparison to Obama. After Carter had entered the

White House, voters were shocked to realize that they had elected a mystery man — they had

bought a pig in a poke. George W. Bush was another little-known candidate: he too talked about

being a uniter and not a divider, promised a foreign policy based on humility, and pledged to govern

in the spirit of compassionate conservatism. Here too, the reality turned out to be much different.

Back in 1991, I realized that even though George H. W. Bush had been occupying the White

House for a number of years, there was no critical and unauthorized biography of him. I therefore

set out to write such a critical biography, which still stands today as the only non-apologetic study

of his life. My present task is to offer readers a chance to get to know Obama before they make the

irrevocable decision to grant him state power in the midst of one of the most severe crises this

country has ever known.

As we have suggested elsewhere in this book, one way to parse the speeches and promises of

presidential candidates is to examine their advisers, handlers, and controllers, since many of these

will make their way into the cabinet and into the White House palace guard. Another important

method is to examine the candidate’s financial backers, and we will do so. A third approach is to

bear in mind the famous dictum that biography is destiny — meaning that the life experience of any

individual is bound to exert a profound influence on the way that person will tend to use the powers

of a public office. It is mainly this third approach which we will implement in this section, seeking

to assemble what is known about the life of Obama with a view to extracting clues about what kind

of a president he might be.

The guiding principle of the present treatment is that when a politician is seeking to get his hands

anywhere near the famous button which can be used to launch worldwide thermonuclear war, when

that politician is in effect demanding life-and-death power over American voters and their families,

then there are no limits to the public’s right to know anything and everything about all facets of that

politician’s life, without exclusions of any sort. For a presidential candidate, there is and can be no

private sphere. Everything is fair game. Researchers are not only allowed to delve into the

candidate’s background in every conceivable way — they are imperatively obligated to do so.

BARRY WHO?

Obama presents unprecedented difficulties for the presidential biographer. His clever handlers,

controllers, and managers seem to have understood very well that a candidate with a resume, a

voting record, and a history of past performance can very easily find that these things become

liabilities when they are scrutinized by the opposition research of political adversaries, or simply by

journalists in general. Any record at all is apt to become grist for the opponent’s attack machine.

Obama appears to have been advised by Senator Daschle that it is better not to stay in the Senate

very long before running for president, since every vote that a Senator makes can represent a policy

I. Obama’s Roots in Polygamy and the Ford Foundation 13

commitment which is going to offend some group or stratum in the voting public. Ironically, it

turns out that in politics, the best resume is often no resume at all. Obama represents this approach

in an extreme form. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, who with her usual cynicism has

rushed to join media swoon for the Illinois Senator, has called Obama “the 46-year-old virgin.” The

columnist Spengler of the Asia Times observes that “We know less about Senator Obama than about

any prospective president in American history. His uplifting rhetoric is empty, as Hillary Clinton

helplessly protests. His career bears no trace of his own character, not an article for the Harvard

Law Review he edited, or a single piece of legislation. He appears to be an empty vessel filled with

the wishful thinking of those around him.” (Spengler, Asia Times, Feb. 26, 2008) Obama’s halfsister,

Maya Soetoro-Ng, a schoolteacher from Hawaii, says cryptically, “He’s a very cool

customer.” The candidate himself admits: “I am an imperfect vessel for your hopes and dreams.”

(Todd Purdum, Vanity Fair, March 2008)

Indeed, Obama would appear to stand for nothing, with no principles, no commitments, no

loyalties, and no real program. In spite of this, Obama did not spring fully armed from the head of

Zbigniew Brzezinski, nor did he rise from the foam of the ocean. He does have a past, and it is to

this past and its lessons that we now turn.

So little is known about the life of Obama that wild rumors have proliferated about who he really

is. Is he a devout Moslem? Is he an Iranian agent? Is he a Marxist crypto-revolutionary? The

conclusion of the present study is that he is none of these. Obama is certainly an ambitious and

ruthless demagogue who can be counted on to be wholly unscrupulous in his pursuit and exercise of

power. He is the creature of those intelligence circles which we may describe as the foundationfunded

Left CIA. Obama is the wholly-controlled puppet of these circles. He has been chosen for

his current task first of all because of his uncanny anthropologist’s ability to size up and profile his

interlocutors for the purpose of duping them all and manipulating them the more efficiently. He

brings to his political campaign the detachment of an anthropologist doing field work: he treats

American voters as mere ethnographic material, mere grist for his power machine. Obama is at

heart a cosmopolitan, meaning that he would seek to float above the various constituent groups of

the US population in the same way that the supernational and cosmopolitan Prince Metternich

sought to float above the subject nationalities of the Austrian Empire until he was forced to flee to

London in 1848. Obama’s connection to the American people is as tenuous as that of such figures

as the German Nesselrode, the Greek Kapodistrias, and the Sardinian Pozzo di Borgo, when they all

found themselves working for the Foreign Ministry of the supernational Russian Empire. Obama is

also reminiscent of those Coptic Christians like the Boutros-Ghali family whom the British

habitually chose as top-level civil servants during their protectorate over Egypt. Imperial regimes

have often chosen to govern large populations through ethnic minorities, and an Obama

administration would give the United States a taste of this kind of rule for the first time.

THE MAKING OF A MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE

Underneath Obama’s cool and aristocratic detachment, however, there lurks a deep resentment

against the broad strata of the American people. It is not a hatred of Wall Street bankers, of CIA

assassins, of war criminals, nor of mercenaries who kill people in countries far away. It must

unavoidably be described as a hatred of the American people themselves, and it is therefore a

sentiment which any responsible person must strongly condemn. Despite his evasive denials,

Obama has a real elective cultural affinity for the “God damn America” outlook expressed by his

pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Based on the research embodied in this study, we can

confidently predict that a future Obama administration would impose austerity, sacrifice, and

14 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

foreign wars on the American people with a wanton cruelty which has not been seen so far, not even

under Bush the younger. It is because of their accumulated anti-American animus that Obama and

his wife have been selected by the circles of the Trilateral Commission for their current attempts to

carry out a postmodern coup d’état, leading in turn to what we must designate as postmodern

fascism.

Obama is a disciple neither of Mohammed nor of Marx. He comes rather from the school of

Frantz Fanon and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. His relation to Rousseau is especially close: both the

Rousseau of the noble savage who is the patron saint of modern anthropology, and the Rousseau of

the collective will, who is the guiding spirit of modern totalitarian liberalism.

Obama’s world is the left wing of the US intelligence community as it emerged in the wake of

President Reagan’s Executive Order 12333 of 1982. It is a world composed of the Ford Foundation

and other foundations specialized in social engineering, social manipulation, social control, and

political counterinsurgency against possible challenges to the system of oligarchical financier

domination of national affairs. It is a world populated by former Weatherman terrorists, black

cultural nationalists, radical Palestinians on the CIA payroll, and left liberal ideologues financed by

the foundations or even by the defense budget. It is the world of the National Endowment for

Democracy, the Soros Foundation, and the veterans of the Jimmy Carter Administration.

BIRTH AND FAMILY

Many sources allege that Barack Hussein Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu,

Hawaii. But even this most basic fact of Obama’s existence is highly controversial, and as this book

goes to press, is a contested issue in the courageous law suit of Philadelphia lawyer Philip J. Berg,

who asserts that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and accordingly cannot be

considered qualified for the presidency.2 His father, Barack Obama, Senior was a member of the

Luo tribe or people from Nyanza Province, Kenya, in East Africa. His mother was Stanley [sic] Ann

Dunham, an American woman who would later became an anthropologist and a consultant for the

World Bank. Obama’s parents met when they were both students at the East-West Center of the

University of Hawaii at Manoa. When Barack Obama was only two years old, his father abandoned

his wife and young son in Hawaii and went to Harvard University, where he obtained a doctorate in

economics, and later returned to Kenya to become a government official. Barack Obama would see

his father only once more in his life.

Barack Obama is listed as the author of two books: Dreams from My Father: a Story of Race

and Inheritance (1995), and The Audacity of Hope (2006). From the first of these works, a number

of themes emerge. First of all, Obama is obsessed with himself. His books do not really represent

programs or promises concerning things that he wants to do for the American public, or to improve

the state of the world. They are concerned above all with his own mental states, yearnings, desires,

and confusions. Secondly, Obama is obsessed with the trauma of having been abandoned by his

father at the age of two, and with the vicissitudes of having grown up as a fatherless boy with all the

problematic syndromes this may imply. He was also later abandoned by his mother. Thirdly,

Obama is obsessed with his African roots; he may at times portray himself as being multicultural,

but his real center of gravity is his Afrocentrism. He is thus a radical subjectivist, and a

postmodernist. His thoroughgoing postmodernism means that he espouses a method of thought

which no American president has thus far represented. These are important things to bear in mind

I. Obama’s Roots in Polygamy and the Ford Foundation 15

as we proceed. Since Obama accords so much importance to his own African background, it is

legitimate to follow him back to his grandfather.

GRANDFATHER OBAMA FROM KENYA:

UNCLE TOM OF BRITISH COLONIALISM

Obama’s grandfather was named Hussein Onyango Obama, who was born about 1895 in Kandu

province, Kenya, and died in 1979. He practiced traditional polygamy and had at least three wives:

Helima, who was childless; Akumu, who was the mother of Sarah Obama and Barack Hussein

Obama, Sr.; and Auma Obama. He also claimed to have married a woman in Burma when he lived

there as the servant of a British officer during World War II. Grandfather Obama belonged to the

Luo tribe. For those who may be scandalized by the idea that the candidate belongs to a tribe, we

can establish this fact by referring to Obama’s own writings. In Dreams from My Father, Obama

travels to Kenya. Here he meets a vendor, an old woman, who tries to make him pay the tourist

price for a necklace. One of Obama’s relatives intervenes to help him avoid paying the inflated

price reserved for foreigners. The dialogue goes like this: ‘“She says that you look like an American

to her.” “Tell her I’m Luo,” I said, beating my chest!”’ (Dreams 310) So Obama, based on his own

memoir, has a strong sense of tribal identity.

The Luo or Lwo people are a Nilotic group from the eastern Sudan whose language (sometimes

called Dholuo) belongs to the Nilo-Saharan language family. The Luo are one of the most numerous

ethnic groups of East Africa, and specialize in agriculture, livestock raising, and fishing. Their

demographic center of gravity is the northeastern shore of Lake Victoria. They currently inhabit

areas of five nations, including the southern Sudan, northern Uganda, eastern Congo, western

Kenya, and part of Tanzania. The Luos are tall and thin Nilotic peoples of haughty and aristocratic

bearing, like the Tutsis. Folklore attributes to the taller Nilotics like Tutsis and Luos the desire to

dominate the shorter Hutu and Kikuyu peoples. Michelle Obama, in the initial transcripts of her

infamous “whitey” tape of July 2004, reportedly takes a strong position in favor of the Tutsi, which

is the very essence of the overall line of Anglo-American imperialism in this part of Africa, which

has always been to support the Tutsi against the Hutu. Some famous Luos include the Kenyan

politician Tom Mboya (assassinated by a Kikuyu in 1959), former Uganda president Milton Obote,

and the infamous butcher Joseph Kony, the head of the Lord’s Resistance Army, a new dark ages

terrorist rebel group which operates in Uganda. The traditional ideological profile of the Luo is that

they are clever but sometimes lethargic, and addicted to show-boating. The Luo are currently

receiving US-UK imperialist support against the majority Kikuyu people in the tribal-ethnic power

struggle unleashed inside Kenya. The Luo represent one of the micro-nationalities which Zbigniew

Brzezinski intends to liberate in the course of his “dignity” campaign against the nation-state. The

advantages for the imperialists of backing the Luo are obvious: if an independent Kurdish state

would carve Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey, a Luo state would carve Sudan, Uganda, Congo, Kenya,

and Tanzania.

OBAMA’S LUO TRIBE: SMART, LAZY, SHOWBOATERS

What kind of people are these Luo? Modern Americans have an idea of the ideology or

mentality of the French, Germans, Italians, Russians, Chinese, and so forth, but what are Luos like?

A standard work on Luo mentality is A.B.C. Ocholla-Ayayo’s Traditional Ideology and Ethics

Among the Southern Luo (Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, 1976). Ochollo-

Ayayo is a Luo writing a profile of the mentality and culture of his own people. Since Obama has

16 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

spoken about his grandmother as a “typical white person,” we may perhaps be allowed here to use

this same method of sampling to make some generalizations about the Luo. Let us use the first Luo

we meet, in this case Ochollo-Ayayo himself, as a typical Luo person, and factor in the analysis he

provides as well as critical reactions to his work, some of them also from Luos. In this way we may

get at least a few insights into Luo ideology and mentality.

The overall profile of the Luo is that they are clever, lazy, and love showboating. Ochollo-Ayayo

goes further, writing about “virtue boasting,” which comes complete with virtue songs and virtue

names or praise names. The Luo cultivate witchcraft and sorcery, although they have increasingly

turned in recent decades to independent churches. The Luo have been studied for the practice of

geophagy (dirt eating) among children.

In a review of Hans-Egil Hauge’s Luo Religion and Folklore (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1974),

Ocholla-Ayayo lectures Hauge about using the wrong terminology in a discussion of polygamy

among the Luo: “Rather than saying that the Luo are polygamous, it would have been more

accurate to say that they practice polygyny [meaning, they have multiple wives at the same time].

The word ‘polygamy’ is ambiguous. It is also inaccurate that ‘by counting the number of huts one

can tell from a distance how many wives a man has,’” since some huts do not correspond to wives,

but may be used for other purposes, such as sleeping quarters for children. Ocholla-Ayayo, who

taught at Khartoum in the Sudan, is so pedantic that he berates Hauge, who published his book in

1974, for not citing a book that Ocholla-Ayayo published two years later, in 1976.

Much of this review is devoted to a discussion of the evil spirits (jachien), and especially the

jajuok otieno, the night-runner or evil spirit who comes to steal cattle. This is an issue treated in

Obama’s Dreams. E.E. Evans-Pritchard, the famous British intelligence figure and professor of

sociology at Oxford, did field work among the Luo in 1936, and produced articles like “Marriage

Customs of the Luo of Kenya” and “Ghostly Vengeance of the Kenya Luo,” Man 133 (1950). Evil

spirits are often those of grandparents who afflict grandchildren because these latter have failed to

carry out their filial duties. The night-runners become a large issue in Obama’s memoir (Dreams

435 and passim). Ocholla-Ayayo’s work is a “brittle inventory” of Luo norms, discussing questions

like pastoralism, the role of cattle and their value, kinship, polygamy/polygyny, and the premises of

Luo reasoning.

Ocholla-Ayayo’s critics tell us more than he does. These reviewers are themselves

anthropologists who deal in academic jargon, but they cannot suppress bursts of annoyance and

resentment at the author because of his pedantic, pompous, lecturing and hectoring method. One

reviewer writes that while the data presented by Ocholla-Ayayo are worthwhile, “the mannered and

often incoherent fashion in which they are presented is likely to alienate even the most welldisposed

of readers.” (Elizabeth Hopkins, ASA Review of Books 5 [1979], 216) This same reviewer

finds this Luo writer’s “belabored pronouncements” to be “verging at times on the tautological.”

There is also a tedious parade of erudition which the reviewer finds insufferable: “One must also

lament Ocholla-Ayayo’s determination to validate the monograph to the scholarly community. The

consequence is an accretion of self-conscious citations in which a hagiography as diverse as

Galatians, David Hume, and Adam Smith is invoked, as well as a multitude of modern

philosophers, economists, sociologists, anthropologists, and jurists. Frequent and gratuitous

references to university mentors also prove regrettably intrusive and distracting.” This reviewer

concludes that the “fragmented, a temporal presentation of the material and the author’s failure to

explore the behavioral as well as the normative dimensions of traditional Luo ideology seriously

undermine its value for the general reader.” The lack of historical analysis is a key defect.

I. Obama’s Roots in Polygamy and the Ford Foundation 17

Obama’s grandfather is described as a strange, hard, autocratic and cruel man. (Dreams from My

Father 397, 406) “It is said of him that he had ants up his anus, because he could not sit still…. he

was very serious always. He was always curious about other people’s business, which is how he

learned to be a herbalist.” (Dreams 397) He was very fastidious and compulsively clean.

Grandfather Obama lived at the time that the British colonialists first arrived in Kenya. Grandfather

Obama was one of the first to imitate the practices of the British: at one point he went away for

some months, and came back wearing European trousers, shirts, and shoes. Kandu province is

located in the interior of Kenya, closer to Lake Victoria than to the Indian Ocean. When the British

arrived in Kandu they began setting up a colonial administration with a district commissioner. The

Kenyans “called this man Bwana Ogalo, which meant “the Oppressor” … he surrounded himself

with Luos who wore clothes like the white man to serve as his agents and tax collectors.” (Dreams

399) One of those who went to work for the British during this time was grandfather Obama, who

“had learned to read and write, and understood the white man system of paper records and land

titles. This made him useful to the white man, and during the war [World War I] he was put in

charge of road crews. Eventually he was sent to Tanganyika, where he stayed for several years.”

(Dreams 400) When grandfather Obama returned to Kandu, he staked his claim to a plot of land,

but he soon departed for Nairobi, where he again went to work for the British.

Obama’s grandfather worked in Nairobi as a butler and cook for the British. He “was popular

with employers and worked in the estates of some of the most important white men, even Lord

Delamere.” (Dreams 401) Hugh Cholmondeley, 3rd Baron Delamere, was the undisputed political

boss of the British colony of Kenya from about 1900 until his death in 1931; he was known as the

Kenyan equivalent of Cecil Rhodes in South Africa, meaning that he was the dominant political

personality of the colony. He had huge estates in the Rift valley. According to Wikipedia, “It is

believed that on one of these Somaliland hunting trips, Delamere coined the term “white hunter” –

the term which came to describe the professional safari hunter in colonial East Africa.” The relation

with Lord Delamere is the first sign of anything extraordinary in the entire Obama clan. If Obama

seizes the presidency, it will be due in some measure to the fact that his grandfather chose to go to

work for the leading British imperialist politician in that part of the world.

Using his earnings, grandfather Obama was able to buy land and cattle in Kandu. He was very

strict about his property, and emerges as an obsessive-compulsive personality. He was also choleric

and violent, and was known for harshly beating his wives and any men who offended him. He was

often involved in shouting matches with his British employers, and once beat one of them with a

cane; he was fortunate to get off with a fine and a warning. He was so violent to his wife Akumu

that she tried repeatedly to get away from him, and finally deserted him for good, leaving behind the

young child who would become Barack Obama’s father.

A BATMAN IN THE BRITISH ARMY

During World War II, grandfather Obama accompanied the British Army captain who was his

employer as cook and servant. He was attached to a British regiment and was stationed in Burma,

Ceylon, Arabia, and Europe. When he returned to Kandu, he was economically well-off. When he

was almost 50, he decided to move to Alego, the family’s ancestral home. At that time Alego was

bush country, but grandfather Obama’s ability as a farmer allowed him to build up a successful

farming business. Grandfather Obama seems all in all to have had a Hobbesian temperament; he is

quoted as saying: “The African is thick. For him to do anything, he needs to be beaten.” (Dreams

407) Grandfather Obama appears to have started his life as a follower of traditional animist or

totemic religion. What Grandfather Obama “respected was strength — discipline…this is also why

18 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

he rejected the Christian religion…For a brief time, he converted [to Christianity], and even

changed his name to Johnson. But he could not understand such ideas as mercy towards your

enemies, or that this man Jesus could wash away a man’s sins. To [him] this was foolish sentiment,

something to comfort women. And so he converted to Islam — he thought its practices conform

more closely to his beliefs,” Barack is told by his grandmother. (Dreams 407) According to some

accounts, he had been exposed to Islam during some time spent in Zanzibar. It was upon converting

to Islam that Grandfather Obama took the name Hussein, which lives on as the middle name of his

grandson, the current presidential candidate. Much of what we learn about Grandfather Obama

comes from Sarah, his third wife; this is the person Obama calls his grandmother. She is not,

however, a blood relative. Sarah Obama describes herself as a devout lifelong Muslim: “I am a

strong believer of the Islamic faith,” she has told interviewers.

Until his first visit to Kenya in the 1990s, candidate Obama had known very little about his

grandfather. The one thing he did know was that his grandfather had opposed his father’s decision

to marry the white woman Stanley Ann Dunham in Hawaii around 1960. Around this one incident,

the future candidate Obama has built an image of his grandfather as a proud Afrocentric race

patriot. Barack Hussein Obama, as the thorough postmodernist that he is, attempts in his writings to

derive his sense of personal identity not so much from his own achievements as an individual as

from his family and ethnic group. In Dreams from My Father, he tells of his bitter disappointment

with the reality of his grandfather’s life: “I knew that, as I had been listening to the story of our

grandfather’s youth, I, too, had felt betrayed. My image of Onyango, faint as it was, had always

been of an autocratic man — a cruel man, perhaps. But I had also imagined him an independent

man, a man of his people, opposed to white rule. There was no real basis for this image, I now

realized — only the letter he had written to Gramps saying that he didn’t want his son marrying

white. That, and his Muslim faith, which in my mind had become linked with the Nation of Islam

back in the states. What Granny had told us scrambled that image completely, causing ugly words

to flash across my mind. Uncle Tom. Collaborator. House n****r.” (Dreams 406)

FATHER: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA SENIOR, “DRUNKEN LECHER”

Of all of Grandfather Obama’s wives, it was Akumu who asserted herself the most, constantly

contradicting her husband and arguing with him. Because of this, Akumu was frequently beaten,

and made several attempts to run away. She disappeared for the last time when Barack Obama

Senior was nine years old. She went back to her family, found a new husband, and went away with

him to what was then called Tanganyika. Obama Senior was therefore raised by Sarah, another of

Grandfather Obama’s wives.

Several weeks after Akumu had fled from her harsh life with Grandfather Obama, Obama Senior

and his elder sister attempted to rejoin their mother. For almost two weeks they trudged along the

primitive roads of rural Kenya, sleeping in the fields and begging for food. They were both starving

when a passerby took them in and sent for Grandfather Obama. This was their last attempt to find

their mother, Akumu. Obama Senior was profoundly traumatized by losing his mother at the age of

nine; he “could not forgive his abandonment, and acted as if Akumu didn’t exist. He told everyone

that I [Grandmother Sarah] was his mother, and although he would send Akumu money when he

became a man, to the end of his life he would always act coldly towards her.... Barack [Senior] was

wild and stubborn like Akumu.” (Dreams 413)

Barack Obama Senior is described as highly intelligent and quick to learn, but also very

mischievous. After Senior’s first day at the Mission school in the village, he told grandfather

I. Obama’s Roots in Polygamy and the Ford Foundation 19

Obama that he did not want to attend school because he already knew everything that was being

taught, and the teacher was a woman. Grandfather Obama shared this contempt for women, so

Senior was sent to a school 6 miles away where the teacher was a man. Only after this male teacher

beat him repeatedly did Senior learn to accept a woman teacher. Senior was often a truant, not

attending school for weeks on end, but mastering the entire subject matter just before the final

exams and coming in first in the class.

During World War II, many Kenyans were inducted into the British Army. When they returned

home, they began to support the cause of independence from colonial rule. Grandfather Obama

agreed with the demand for independence, but he refused to become associated with the

independence movements. He argued that Africans could never defeat British troops. “How can

the African defeat the white man,” he told Senior, “when he cannot even make his own bicycle? ...

That is why the black man will always lose.” (Dreams 417) Despite his refusal to join the

independence movement, Grandfather Obama was arrested by the British and held in a

concentration camp for more than six months because one of his personal enemies, an employee of

the British district commissioner, had settled a score by placing his name on the list of dangerous

subversives. When he finally returned home, his health was broken.

OBAMA SENIOR EXPELLED FROM PREP SCHOOL FOR HANKY-PANKY

Obama Senior had taken the entrance examination for the Maseno Mission School, an elite

college preparatory institution which very few Africans were allowed to attend. He was admitted to

this school and seemed to have a great future ahead of him, but he soon encountered disciplinary

problems. He insisted on violating the rules by bringing girls into his dormitory. He and his friends

stole chickens and yams from nearby farms because the dormitory food was not to their liking. At

first the teachers were indulgent because Senior was such a good student, but he was caught one too

many times and was expelled. When he returned home he was severely beaten by Grandfather

Obama, who forced him to go to Mombasa and take a job in the office of an Arab merchant. He

quarreled with the Arab and had to take a job that paid much less. He worked for a time as a

goatherd. This is the origin of BHO’s claim to be a son of a goatherd. Eventually Senior moved to

Nairobi and found work as a clerk for the British railway authority. He attended a pro-independence

meeting, and was arrested and jailed for a few days by the British. During this time Senior married

his first wife, Kezia, and soon had two children, Roy and Auma. At this time he was employed as

an office boy by an Arab merchant named Suleiman.

Up to now we have been forced to rely on candidate Obama’s own account of these events.

From this point on, we can begin to supplement this with other sources. A more detailed view of

Senior and Kezia’s early years is provided by some British journalists: ‘At 18, Barack Hussein

Obama Sr. (Senior) married a girl called Kezia from the local village. It was Kezia who remained

his one true love and to whom he always returned. She was a 16-year-old schoolgirl while Senior,

two years older, had just got his first proper job as an office clerk in Nairobi. Senior convinced

Kezia to elope with him to Nairobi. Her father, a local driver, was furious. Kezia said: “He did not

like Obama. My father and brothers came to Nairobi to bring me back. They said I had to go back to

school. When I wouldn’t, they said they would never speak to me again. Barack was also worried

about what his father (Grandfather Obama) would think because I was so young, but he gave us his

approval. He sent my mother and father 14 cows for my dowry.” Kezia and Barack Sr. set up home

in Jericho, a section of Nairobi created for government employees, and began a family. First son

Roy was born in March 1958.’ (London Daily Mail, January 27, 2007)

20 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

In contrast to the media swoon of total adulation and uncritical acceptance of Obama here in the

United States, the British Daily Mail stresses that much of the account given in Dreams from My

Father is disingenuous and untrue. They comment: “Indeed, by offering up a conveniently plotted

account of his personal history in this way, he might even have made a pre-emptive strike on those

sure to pose the awkward questions that inevitably face a serious contender for the White House.

Yet an investigation by The Mail on Sunday has revealed that, for all Mr Obama’s reputation for

straight talking and the compelling narrative of his recollections, they are largely myth.” (London

Daily Mail, January 27, 2007)

Senior’s life began to change when he encountered two American women missionary teachers.

They helped him to sign up for a correspondence course leading to a secondary school certificate.

He took the equivalency test at the US Embassy, and passed. He then applied to numerous

universities in the United States, and in 1958 won a scholarship at the University of Hawaii. Senior,

then aged twenty-three, left as soon as possible for Hawaii, deserting his pregnant wife and son,

who took refuge with Grandmother Sarah. Thus, when Senior married Stanley Ann Dunham, he

was a bigamist from the point of view of US law.

These years represented an acute phase of the Cold War struggle between the United States and

the Soviet Union. At about this time, the Soviets created the Patrice Lumumba University in

Moscow as a special institution for the education and indoctrination of African students. The

Soviets sought actively to recruit the future leaders of African countries and bring them to Moscow

for a free university education in the hopes that they would remain sympathetic to the Soviet cause

during the rest of their careers. We must assume that a few were also recruited by the KGB. The

United States intelligence agencies carried out similar operations on a somewhat more decentralized

basis for the recruitment of young prospective African leaders as agents of US influence. The

recruitment of Obama Senior by the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii at Manoa could

very well have occurred within the framework of such a US effort. In fact, we are told that Obama

Senior and Stanley Ann Dunham met for the first time in a Russian class. Some commentators have

concluded from that that candidate Obama’s mother was a Soviet or communist sympathizer. There

is probably some truth in that thesis. But Obama Senior may have been studying Russian as part of

a US-backed program aimed at making him at the very least a US sympathizer in Kenyan society,

and perhaps something more. At any rate, it is quite possible that the spirit of the CIA hovered over

candidate Obama’s parents at the time of their wedding, if there was one. The marriage of Obama

Senior with Ann Dunham must be regarded as highly unusual at a time when interracial marriage

was still illegal in many U.S. states. There was, however, a high statistical correlation between

interracial marriage and proximity to the Communist Party.

OBAMA SENIOR: AN ABUSIVE POLYGAMIST AND EGOMANIAC

The Daily Mail account stresses that even though the image of Senior presented in candidate

Obama’s first book is hardly sympathetic, it is nevertheless an attempt to present this unattractive

individual in the best possible light: “We have discovered that his father was not just a deeply

flawed individual but an abusive bigamist and an egomaniac, whose life was ruined not by racism

or corruption but his own weaknesses. And, devastatingly, the testimony has come from Mr

Obama’s own relatives and family friends. Relatives say he was already a slick womaniser and,

once in Honolulu, he promptly persuaded a fellow student called Ann - a naive 18-year-old white

girl - to marry him. Barack Junior was born in August, 1961.” (Sharon Churcher, “A drunk and a

bigot - what the US Presidential hopeful HASN’T said about his father,” London Daily Mail,

January 27, 2007)

I. Obama’s Roots in Polygamy and the Ford Foundation 21

Part of candidate Obama’s technique in composing his reminiscences of his fugitive father is

unquestionably to project backward into the world of almost half a century ago the categories of

race, Afrocentrism, and multiculturalism which were not in fact operative in those days in the ways

that the current candidate suggests. As the British series points out, ‘“Mr Obama Junior claims that

racism on both sides of the family destroyed the marriage between his mother and father. In his

book, [candidate Obama] says that Ann’s mother, who went by the nickname Tut, did not want a

black son-in-law, and Obama Senior’s father didn’t want the Obama blood sullied by a white

woman. In fact Ann divorced her husband after she discovered his bigamous double life. She

remarried and moved to Indonesia with young Barack and her new husband, an oil company

manager. Obama Senior was forced to return to Kenya, where he fathered two more children by

Kezia. He was eventually hired as a top civil servant in the fledgling government of Jomo Kenyatta

- and married yet again. Now prosperous with a flashy car and good salary, his third wife was an

American-born teacher called Ruth, whom he had met at Harvard while still legally married to both

Kezia and Ann, and who followed him to Africa. A relative of Mr Obama says: “We told him

[Barack] how his father would still go to Kezia and it was during these visits that she became

pregnant with two more children. He also had two children with Ruth.” It is alleged that Ruth

finally left him after he repeatedly flew into whisky-fuelled rages, beating her brutally. Friends say

drinking blighted his life - he lost both his legs while driving under the influence and also lost his

job. However, this was no bar to his womanising: he sired a son, his eighth child, by yet another

woman and continued to come home drunk. He was about to marry her when he finally died in yet

another drunken crash when Obama was 21.”’ (Sharon Churcher, “A drunk and a bigot - what the

US Presidential hopeful HASN’T said about his father,” London Daily Mail, January 27, 2007)

The eyewitness accounts of Obama’s first trip to Kenya assembled by the Daily Mail suggest

that candidate Obama was filled with shock and consternation when he realized that his fantasy

picture of his absentee father did not correspond to anything real: ‘Mr Obama’s 40-year-old cousin

Said Hussein Obama told The Mail on Sunday: “Clearly, Barack has been very deeply affected by

what he has learned about his father, who was my father’s older brother. You have to remember that

his father was an African and in Africa, polygamy is part of life. We have assured Barack that his

father was a loving person but at times it must be difficult for him to reconcile this with his father’s

drinking and simultaneous marriages.” Said adds: “His father was a human being and as such you

can’t say that he was 100 per cent perfect. My cousin found it difficult when he came here to learn

of his half-brothers and sisters born to four different mothers. But just as Africans find the Western

world strange so Americans coming here will find Africa strange.”’ (Sharon Churcher, “A drunk

and a bigot - what the US Presidential hopeful HASN’T said about his father,” London Daily Mail,

January 27, 2007)

For years, candidate Obama had attempted to interpret the little he knew about his father’s life in

terms coherent with popular radical books like Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth. In reality

Obama Senior might have been a sad and deluded drunk out of Eugene O’Neill: ‘Far from being an

inspiration, the father whom Mr Obama was coming to know seemed like a total stranger. In his

book, he attempts to put the best face on it. His father, he writes, lost his civil service job after

campaigning against corrupt African politicians who had “taken the place of the white colonials.”

One of Obama Senior’s former drinking partners was Kenyan writer Philip Ochieng. Ochieng says,

however, that his friend’s downfall was his weak character. Although charming, generous and

extraordinarily clever, Obama Senior was also imperious, cruel and given to boasting about his

brain and his wealth, he said. “He was excessively fond of Scotch. He had fallen into the habit of

22 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

going home drunk every night. His boasting proved his undoing and left him without a job, plunged

him into prolonged poverty and dangerously wounded his ego.”

Ochieng recalls how, after sitting up all night drinking Black Label whisky at Nairobi’s famous

Stanley Hotel, Obama Senior would fly into rages if Ruth asked where he had been. Ochieng

remonstrated with his friend, saying: “You bring a woman from far away and you reduce her to

pulp. That is not our way.” But it was to no avail. Ruth sued for divorce after her husband

administered brutal beatings. In fact he was a menace to life, said Ochieng. “He had many

extremely serious accidents. Both his legs had to be amputated. They were replaced with crude false

limbs made from iron. He was just like Mr Toad [from The Wind In The Willows], very arrogant on

the road, especially when he had whisky inside. I was not surprised when I learned how he died.”’

(Sharon Churcher, “A drunk and a bigot - what the US Presidential hopeful HASN’T said about his

father,” London Daily Mail, January 27, 2007)

The Daily Mail was able to track down Obama Senior’s third wife. ‘Ruth refused to comment on

the abuse charges when we tracked her down to the Kenyan school where she now works. She said:

“I was married to Barack’s father for seven years so, yes, you could say Barack is my stepson.

Barack’s father was a very difficult man. Although I was married to him the longest of any of his

wives he wasn’t an easy person to be around.” Mr Obama has acknowledged that his father

grappled with a drinking problem. But with a gift for words that makes Mrs Clinton’s utterances

seem stiff and stale, he has turned it into another component of the myth. Drink, he says, like drugs

is one of “the traps that seem laid in a black man’s soul.”’ (Sharon Churcher, “A drunk and a bigot -

what the US Presidential hopeful HASN’T said about his father,” London Daily Mail, January 27,

2007)

This other American wife is named Ruth Nidesand. The son she had with Obama Senior, who is

therefore Obama’s half-brother, has been located by the British press in China. We read: ‘Barack

Obama’s half-brother has been helping to promote cheap Chinese exports in a low-profile business

career while the Democratic senator has been winning worldwide fame in his race for the White

House. He has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid public attention and his family links remain

unknown to most of his acquaintances in Shenzhen, a border boomtown in southern China where he

has lived since 2002. Mark Ndesandjo is the son of Barack Obama’s late father and his third wife,

an American woman named Ruth Nidesand who runs the up-market Maduri kindergarten in

Nairobi.3 Obama, however, refers to him simply as “my brother” and says he was the only

uncontested heir after their father, a Kenyan, died in a car crash in 1982.’ (Sunday Times, July 27,

2008)

As for the rest of Obama’s eight to ten siblings: ‘The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it

had found George Hussein Onyango Obaa living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the

outskirts of Nairobi. Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate's half-brothers, spoke

for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic

contender. "No-one knows who I am," he told the magazine, before claiming: "I live here on less

than a dollar a month." According to Italy's Vanity Fair his two metre by three metre shack is

decorated with football posters of the Italian football giants AC Milan and Inter, as well as a

calendar showing exotic beaches of the world. Vanity Fair also noted that he had a front page

newspaper picture of his famous brother - born of the same father as him, Barack Hussein Obama,

but to a different mother, named only as Jael. He told the magazine: "I live like a recluse, no-one

knows I exist." Embarrassed by his penury, he said that he does not does not mention his famous

half-brother in conversation. "If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related.

I. Obama’s Roots in Polygamy and the Ford Foundation 23

I am ashamed," he said. For ten years George Obama lived rough. However he now hopes to try to

sort his life out by starting a course at a local technical college. He has only met his famous older

brother twice - once when he was just five and the last time in 2006 when Senator Obama was on a

tour of East Africa and visited Nairobi.’ (Daily Telegraph, August 21, 2008) Obama has often

paraded his devotion to the poor, to the “least of these” in Gospel terms. But although Obama talks

a good game of charity, it appears that he has never given a penny to this wretched man who lives in

poverty and despair made more acute by the contrast with his half-brother, the glittering

international celebrity. If Obama’s black African brother gets no charity from Barky and Michelle,

what can the American people expect except snake-like cruelty?

The Daily Mail account of Obama Senior in Kenya concludes with the finding that candidate

Obama has been permanently traumatized by his discovery as an adult in his mid-30s of the sordid

details of his father’s actual biography. These details are worthy of attention, since psychological

dramas, reaction formations, and related forms of psychological vulnerability have often been used

in the recent past by the various White House palace guards to manipulate and control elected

presidents. We must therefore pay special attention to the Daily Mail’s conclusion that: ‘Family

members and acquaintances believe that the real cloud over Mr Obama’s life has been the discovery

that his father was far from the romantic figure that his mother tried to portray. A family friend said:

“He is haunted by his father’s failures. He grew up thinking of his father as a brilliant intellectual

and pioneer of African independence only to learn that in Western terms he was basically a drunken

lecher.” This ugly truth, say friends, has made Mr Obama ruthlessly determined to use every

weapon that he has to succeed, including the glossily edited version of his father’s story. “At the

end of the day Barack wants the story to help his political cause, so perhaps he couldn’t afford to be

too honest,” said Ochieng.

Significantly, it was only four years after his father’s death that Mr Obama travelled to his

father’s ancestral Kenyan village. There he learned the full story of his father’s life and met some of

his relatives. One of his half-sisters, Auma, is now a council worker in southern England, but some

of his other relatives are still living in huts in the village, without plumbing or electricity, farming a

few scrawny goats and chicken and growing fruit and maize. They speak the tribal Luo language

and depend on handouts from family members who have emigrated to the UK and the United States

for their few luxuries, notably the transistor radios that they use to follow Mr Obama’s rocketing

political fortunes. He has positioned himself as a devout Christian (having found God, he says, after

years as an atheist) ….”’ (Sharon Churcher, “A drunk and a bigot - what the US Presidential

hopeful HASN’T said about his father,” London Daily Mail, January 27, 2007)

Candidate Obama writes in Dreams of My Father, “Someone once said that every man is trying

to either live up to his father’s expectations or make up for his father’s mistakes, and I suppose that

may explain my particular malady.” Candidate Obama may therefore be aware to some degree of

the psychological drama which he exhibits. But this still leaves important questions: Has he ever

grown up? Does he have the psychological strength necessary for independent and autonomous

action, as mandated by the constitutional powers of the president enumerated in the U.S.

Constitution? Due in large part to the adulation and propitiation of Obama by the controlled

corporate media, these life-and-death questions are far from having been answered.

MATERNAL GRANDFATHER, STANLEY DUNHAM, KANSAS ATHEIST

Obama’s maternal grandparents came from Wichita, Kansas. His grandfather, Stanley Dunham,

the person he calls Gramps, had worked on oil rigs during the great depression of the 1930s. Stanley

24 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Dunham had far less social standing than Madelyn Dunham, who came from a somewhat better

family; this class divide between a worker and petty bougeoise caused tension during their

marriage. According to one account, Madelyn Dunham’s family had been slaveholders: “one of

Obama’s great-great-great-great grandfathers, George Washington Overall, owned two slaves who

were recorded in the 1850 Census in Nelson County, Kentucky. The same records show that one of

Obama’s great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers, Mary Duvall, also owned two slaves.”

(Wikipedia) “When World War II came, Stanley enlisted in the Army. Madelyn became a Rosiethe-

Riveter at Boeing Co.’s B-29 production plant in Wichita. And Stanley Ann Dunham arrived in

late November 1942. (Chicago Tribune, March 27, 2007) After the war, Stanley went to college

with the help of the G.I. Bill, and bought a house with a subsidized loan from the Federal Housing

Program. Stanley and Madelyn Dunham would eventually live in 13 different places.

Stanley Armour Dunham is described by Obama as something of a freethinker or bohemian,

presumably meaning that he dabbled in atheism, which was considered something radical in the

early 1960s. He inclined toward the Unitarian Universalist point of view of religious syncretism,

and was proud that his church was able to draw on the sacred texts of five great world religions.4 He

was friendly with several Jews, Obama tells us, and liked to listen to Nat King Cole. (Dreams 17)

Grandfather Stanley was sympathetic to black issues and causes; Obama tells us that he had

suffered some insults himself because “he looked like a ‘wop.’” (Dreams 21) Later on, as we will

see, he took Barack Obama with him when he went to visit a group of black communists in Hawaii

around 1970. Stanley Dunham died in 1992.

MADELYN “TOOT” DUNHAM – GRANDMOTHER

Madelyn Dunham is called Tutu or Toot or Tut in Obama’s reminiscence and in other accounts;

this is the word for grandparent in the Hawaiian language. (Dreams 7) Interestingly, the Obama

campaign has refused to facilitate interviews by interested journalists with Madelyn Dunham: “the

Obama campaign declined to make Madelyn Dunham, 84, available.” (Chicago Tribune, March 27,

2007) For some reason, the Obama campaign has been very reluctant to allow Madelyn Dunham to

interact with the press. Do they think that a white grandmother would cause resentment among

blacks, or is there something that they are hiding? Madelyn Dunham is now well-known as the

grandmother whom Obama threw under the bus in his desperate maneuvering in the wake of the

explosion of the Jeremiah Wright “God damn America” scandal in mid-March 2008.

MOTHER: STANLEY ANN DUNHAM, PRO-COMMUNIST ANTHROPOLOGIST

Obama’s mother was unquestionably the greatest single influence on his formative years. Her

legal name was indeed Stanley Ann Dunham. She was named Stanley by her father because he had

wanted very much to have a son. This incongruous gesture recalls the predicament of “A Boy

Named Sue” in the humorous song by Johnny Cash. Obama makes some attempt in his

reminiscences to portray his mother as a bland Eisenhower-era middle American from Kansas, but

this once again represents typical disingenuous window-dressing. Obama’s attempt to spin his

mother into something she was not has even been noted in the normally deferential Chicago

Tribune account: ‘Implicit in [Obama’s portrayal of his mother] is this message: If you have any

lingering questions or doubts about the Hawaiian-born presidential candidate with a funny name,

just remember that Mom hails from America’s good earth. That’s the log cabin story, or his version

of Bill Clinton’s “Man from Hope.” That presentation, though, glosses over Stanley Ann Dunham’s

formative years, spent not on the Great Plains but more than 1,800 miles away on a small island in

I. Obama’s Roots in Polygamy and the Ford Foundation 25

the Pacific Northwest. Obama visited the Seattle area last October, and in a speech to a Democratic

Party rally at Bellevue Community College, he mentioned that his mother attended Mercer Island

High School before moving on to Hawaii. In Dreams, Obama wrote that the family moved to

Seattle “long enough for my mother to finish high school.”’ (Chicago Tribune, March 27, 2007)

In reality, Ann Dunham started out as something of a bluestocking, a nonconformist and radical

who was profoundly ill-at-ease with the superficial normalcy of the Eisenhower years. She was a

left liberal, a feminist and a parlor atheist. The Dunham family moved to the Seattle area in the mid-

1950s, and it was there that Ann Dunham attended Mercer Island High School, where not just the

existentialists Sartre and Kierkegaard, but even “The Communist Manifesto” were in the

curriculum. Coming as she did from a heterodox and nonconformist family, it is not surprising to

find Ann Dunham described as having been both a communist sympathizer and a liberal. Obama

thus qualifies in some sense as a red diaper baby.

Madelyn and Stanley, originally Methodist and Baptist respectively, along with their daughter

joined the East Shore Unitarian Church in nearby Bellevue, Washington. ‘“In the 1950s, this was

sometimes known as ‘the little Red church on the hill,” said Peter Luton, the church’s senior

minister, referring to the effects of McCarthyism. Skepticism, the kind that Stanley embraced and

passed on to his daughter, was welcomed here.’ (Chicago Tribune, March 27, 2007) Ann Dunham

actively embraced the cause of skepticism and freethinking. ‘“She touted herself as an atheist, and it

was something she’d read about and could argue,” said Maxine Box, who was Dunham’s best friend

in high school. “She was always challenging and arguing and comparing. She was already thinking

about things that the rest of us hadn’t.”’ (Chicago Tribune, March 27, 2007) Ann Dunham also

showed a lively interest in international politics, quite possibly with a tendency to sympathize with

the Moscow line: ‘“If you were concerned about something going wrong in the world, Stanley

would know about it first,” said Chip Wall, who described her as “a fellow traveler. . . . We were

liberals before we knew what liberals were.”’ (Chicago Tribune, March 27, 2007) “Fellow traveler”

is a term used during the McCarthy era to describe a communist sympathizer.

The “fellow traveler” issue became prominent at Mercer Island High School when Ann was

studying there, thanks to one of the anti-Communist witch hunts of the House Committee on Un-

American Activities, the infamous HUAC. ‘In 1955, the chairman of the Mercer Island school

board, John Stenhouse, testified before the House Un-American Activities Subcommittee that he

had been a member of the Communist Party. At Mercer High School, two teachers — Val Foubert

and Jim Wichterman — generated regular parental thunderstorms by teaching their students to

challenge societal norms and question all manner of authority. Foubert, who died recently, taught

English. His texts were cutting edge: “Atlas Shrugged,” “The Organization Man,” “The Hidden

Persuaders,” “1984” and the acerbic writings of H.L. Mencken.’ (Chicago Tribune, March 27,

2007) As we can see, there is nothing communist about these texts, which are variously libertarian,

British intelligence, foundation-funded, and simple muckraking, but Foubert and Wichterman must

have loomed as a new Lenin-Trotsky or Stalin-Mao duo in the provincial imaginations of the local

parents. ‘Wichterman taught philosophy. The hallway between the two classes was known as

“anarchy alley,” and students pondered the challenging notions of Wichterman’s teachings,

including such philosophers as Sartre and Kierkegaard. He also touched the societal third rail of the

1950s: He questioned the existence of God. And he didn’t stop there.’ (Chicago Tribune, March 27,

2007)

With Stanley always looking for better opportunities, the family moved to Hawaii. Ann Dunham

“began classes at the University of Hawaii in 1960, and shortly after that…had fallen in love with a

26 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

grad student. He was black, from Kenya and named Obama.” (Chicago Tribune, March 27, 2007)

Ann married Obama Senior when she was 18 years old. They met in a Russian language class,

which may or may not indicate sympathy for Soviet communism (it could have indicated a desire to

join the intelligence community): each one could have been there for many reasons, including

training by a US intelligence agency. One person who knew Barack Obama Senior and Ann

Dunham and their social set in those days is the Democratic Congressman Neil Abercrombie, who

has recalled that ‘while Obama was impatient and energized, Stanley Ann, whom Abercrombie

described as “the original feminist,” was endlessly patient but quietly passionate in her arguments.

She was the only woman in the group.’ (Chicago Tribune, March 27, 2007)

Those who had known Ann Dunham as an independent woman not interested in marriage and

children were surprised by her sudden decision to marry Obama Senior. ‘“I just couldn’t imagine

her life changing so quickly,” said [one such friend], thinking about her independent-minded friend

who had disdained marriage and motherhood.’ (Chicago Tribune, March 27, 2007) Evidently the

irresistible appeal of a husband from the third world had eclipsed Ann’s feminism. Ironically, the

third world turned out not to be the repository of unalloyed goodness which a disciple of Rousseau

would have expected. The original feminist Ann Dunham would soon find herself the victim not

just of a bigamist but of a polygamist who would abandon her and her infant son without a second

thought. Barack Obama today bears the mental scars of this experience.

Grandfather Onyango, back in Kenya, was fiercely opposed to Obama Senior’s marriage. He

wrote the Dunhams a ‘“long, nasty letter saying that he didn’t approve of the marriage.” This

former house servant for the British colonialists “didn’t want the Obama blood sullied by a white

woman.” His main argument was that this American girl would never agree to return to Kenya and

live under conditions of polygamy. Onyango wrote: “How can you marry this white woman when

you have responsibilities at home? Will this woman return with you and live as a Luo woman?

Will she accept that you already have a wife and children? I have not heard of white people

understanding such things. Their women are jealous and used to being pampered. But if I am

wrong in this matter, let the girl’s father come to my hut and discuss the situation properly. But this

is the affair of elders, not children.”’ (Dreams 422)

Ann Dunham may have felt compelled to get married because she was already pregnant. As we

read in one journalistic account; ‘Six months after they wed, another letter arrived in Kenya,

announcing the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, born Aug. 4, 1961. Despite her husband’s

continued anger, Sarah Obama said in a recent interview, she “was so happy to have a grandchild in

the U.S.”’ (Chicago Tribune, March 27, 2007) There is also some question about the documentation

and thus of the legality of the marriage of Obama Senior to Ann Dunham. This wedding may not

have been properly documented, as Obama himself tells us. “How and when the marriage occurred

remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I have never quite had the courage to explore,” Obama

writes in Dreams. In other words, this may have been a common law marriage.5 The implication is

that presidential candidate Barack Obama may be an illegitimate child born outside of wedlock, or,

in plain English, a bastard.6

A FEMINIST DOORMAT FOR A POLYGAMIST

The later Congressman Neil Abercrombie sensed at the beginning that this marriage was not

destined to last. Obama Senior was self-absorbed and self-centered, and evidently regarded the

marriage as a mere temporary convenience for the time of his stay in Hawaii: ‘Obama was one of

the most ambitious, self-focused men he had ever met. After Obama was accepted to study at

I. Obama’s Roots in Polygamy and the Ford Foundation 27

Harvard, Stanley Ann disappeared from the University of Hawaii student gatherings, but she did not

accompany her husband to Harvard. Abercrombie said he rarely saw her after that. “I know he

loved Ann,” Abercrombie said, but “I think he didn’t want the impediment of being responsible for

a family. He expected great things of himself and he was going off to achieve them.”’ (Chicago

Tribune, March 27, 2007)

In 1963, Obama Senior abandoned his wife and infant son in order to enter a doctoral program in

economics at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His decision can only be

characterized as cruelly egotistical and irresponsible. Obama Senior had received two fellowships.

One was to pursue a doctorate in economics at the New School for Social Research in New York

City. This fellowship was generous enough so as to permit both Ann and baby Barack to

accompany him to New York. The Harvard fellowship was smaller, reportedly not sufficient to

support Ann and her baby. Obama Senior callously argued that he had no choice but to accept the

Harvard fellowship. As Ann Dunham later told her son Barack: ‘“He received two scholarships, one

in New York, which paid enough to support all three of us. Harvard had just agreed to pay tuition.

‘How can I refuse the best education?’ he told me. That’s all he could think about, proving that he

was the best.”’ (Dreams 126)

Naturally, Obama Senior and/or Ann could have supplemented the fellowship with a part-time or

full-time job if the main goal had been to keep the family together. Once it was clear that Obama

Senior was determined to abandon his family, Ann could have sued him for divorce and child

support payments, since Obama Senior’s polygamous outlook had no standing under US law.

Instead of acting to assert the best interests of her infant child, Ann Dunham chose supinely to let

herself be abused and mistreated by Obama Senior, who thus emerges as a monster of egomania.

Ann was apparently so deluded by her relativistic and Rousseauvian ideological categories that she

was unable to fight for her son’s future.

Barack Obama glosses over Obama Senior’s abandonment of his mother in detached prose in the

passive voice: “A separation occurred, and he returned to Africa to fulfill his promise to the

continent.” (Dreams 10) Obsessed with his racialist ideology, Obama chooses not to recognize that

his mother was treated as a doormat, and was too weak to assert herself against the outrageous

actions of Obama Senior. Perhaps Obama’s contempt for women is rooted in his mother’s craven

willingness to capitulate to the selfishness of Obama Senior. For Ann Dunham, Rousseau was much

more powerful than feminism when it really mattered. When Obama was about to visit Senior in

Kenya for the first time, poor Ann Dunham told Obama: I hope you don’t feel resentful towards

him…It wasn’t your father’s fault that he left, you know. I divorced him.” (Dreams 125) This

account is at variance with the fact of abandonment, and shows that even after many years, Ann

refused to accept the reality of the outrageous treatment she had received, and of her own failure to

fight for her son.

It is worth noting in passing that Obama qualifies as a fatherless young boy who was also

abandoned by his mother before the age of 10. This pattern produces a psychological profile full of

debilitating psychological complexes, including the obsessive quest for an ersatz or substitute

father, and the need to be assured of one’s own personal worth by a series of sexual partners, be

they male or female. The last president to exhibit this pattern was William Jefferson Blythe III, the

posthumous son better known as Bill Clinton, whose father was killed in an automobile accident

before he was born. For some time after that, young Bill Clinton lived with his grandparents while

his mother allegedly worked as a nurse in another city. Bill Clinton’s case of this syndrome was

complicated by the fact that his stepfather, Roger Clinton, was an alcoholic who physically abused

28 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

the future president’s mother. Bill Clinton’s need to obtain the validation of his ego from the wellknown

parade of women requires no further comment. Bill Clinton’s philandering clearly resulted

from a lack of ego strength: no matter how much he achieved in life, he always needed to be

assured of his personal worth by a parade of women, one of whom turned out to be Miss Lewinsky.

However, there is already evidence that before all is said and done, it will become evident that Bill

Clinton has done a much better job of controlling his own compulsive urges than Obama has, since

there is evidence that the Illinois Senator has veered recklessly into the world of bisexuality.

As the columnist Spengler of the Asia Times points out, Michelle Obama – who often sounds

like a feminist when she is talking about her own immediate concerns – shows no indignation about

the tragic spousal abuse which Ann was willing to undergo: ‘Michelle Obama speaks with greater

warmth of her mother-in-law than of her husband. “She was kind of a dreamer, his mother,”

Michelle Obama was quoted in the January 25 Boston Globe. “She wanted the world to be open to

her and her children. And as a result of her naivete, sometimes they lived on food stamps, because

sometimes dreams don’t pay the rent. But as a result of her naivete, Barack got to see the world like

most of us don’t in this country.” How strong the ideological motivation must be of a mother to

raise her children on thin fare in pursuit of a political agenda. “Naivete” is a euphemism for Ann

Dunham’s motivation… Many Americans harbor leftist views, but not many marry into them,

twice.’ (Asia Times, February 26, 2008) Indeed: what kind of left liberal feminist is going to accept

abandonment by a man whom she knew to be at least a bigamist?

ANN DUNHAM, FORD FOUNDATION OPERATIVE:

THE MICROLOAN RACKET

Ann Dunham became famous posthumously when Time Magazine placed a picture of her with

Barry (Obama) as a toddler – complete with halo – on the cover of its April 21, 2008 issue – in a

forlorn attempt to humanize the recently bittergated Obama just before the Pennsylvania primary.

The overall intent here is to whitewash this quasi-Marxist, Rousseauvian leftist anthropologist into a

sort of middle American humanitarian – an attempt so transparent that Time began receiving letters

impugning its journalistic integrity. Nevertheless, we do learn more about Ann’s later career as Ford

Foundation operative. Her specialty was the cynical financier racket known as microloans or

microcredits – tiny sums of money lent at substantial interest rates to tiny third world entrepreneurs,

with the classic case being the purchase of a cell phone to provide phone service to some rural

village – all in lieu of real communications and transportation infrastructure which the finance

oligarchs at the World Bank and the regional lending agencies had no intention of financing.

Microloans represented the World Bank’s notion of small is beautiful “appropriate technology” –

meaning that if you are a backward country, then backward, third-rate technology is all you will get,

so you had better take it with gratitude. Microloans also served to tether the third world masses to

the mentality of finance capital, familiarizing them with notions of interest rates, the deadlines for

installment payments, and all the dreary apparatus of usury. This entire cynical enterprise reached a

paroxysm a decade after Ann Dunham’s death, when Muhammad Yunus of the Bangladeshi

Grameen Bank won the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in pioneering micro-credits. By this

time, the micro-credit was widespread, with a 2004 report showing that some 3,200 micro-credit

institutions were reaching more than 92 million clients, mainly in the poorest countries of the

underdeveloped world. It was an exercise in loan sharking and predatory lending to the most

desperate people in the world, the most defenseless victims of economic globalization. When Yunus

won his Nobel, he was widely praised: “Muhammad Yunus is a revolutionary in the best sense of

the word,” said Sam Daley-Harris, director of the Microcredit Summit Campaign in Washington,

I. Obama’s Roots in Polygamy and the Ford Foundation 29

D.C. He was in fact a counter-revolutionary in the service of rapacious finance capital, and this was

a good description of the mature Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother. As for Ann, she no doubt

kept telling herself that she was doing something very radical.

The adulatory Time account tells us that after her divorce from her Indonesian second husband

Lolo Sotero or Soetero, Ann ‘took a big job as the program officer for women and employment at

the Ford Foundation, and she spoke up forcefully at staff meetings. Unlike many other expats, she

had spent a lot of time with villagers, learning their priorities and problems, with a special focus on

women’s work. “She was influenced by hanging out in the Javanese marketplace,” [her

acquaintance] Zurbuchen says, “where she would see women with heavy baskets on their backs

who got up at 3 in the morning to walk to the market and sell their produce.” Ann thought the Ford

Foundation should get closer to the people and further from the government, just as she had.’ In

other words, her programs would subvert the existing government by pretending to take the side of

the oppressed masses – just what Soros and the other Wall Street jackals would have desired. Ann’s

‘home became a gathering spot for the powerful and the marginalized: politicians, filmmakers,

musicians and labor organizers. “She had, compared with other foundation colleagues, a much more

eclectic circle,” Zurbuchen says. “She brought unlikely conversation partners together.”’ These

eclectic and bohemian tastes live on in Barry. Time goes on: ‘Ann’s most lasting professional

legacy was to help build the microfinance program in Indonesia, which she did from 1988 to ‘92—

before the practice of granting tiny loans to credit-poor entrepreneurs was an established success

story. Her anthropological research into how real people worked helped inform the policies set by

the Bank Rakyat Indonesia, says Patten, an economist who worked there. “I would say her work had

a lot to do with the success of the program,” he says. Today Indonesia’s microfinance program is

No. 1 in the world in terms of savers, with 31 million members, according to Microfinance

Information Exchange Inc., a microfinance-tracking outfit. […] Every so often, Ann would leave

Indonesia to live in Hawaii—or New York or even, in the mid-1980s, Pakistan, for a microfinance

job.’ (Amanda Ripley, “Raising Obama,” Time, April 21, 2008) As for Barack Obama, his thoughts

were elsewhere; he writes that in these years of living in the ethnically diverse atmosphere of

Hawaii, “I was too young to know that I needed a race.” (Dreams 27) A strange attitude for a

candidate who now poses as being virtually trans-racial and even post-racial.

LOLO SOETERO AND INDONESIA:

COSMOPOLITANISM AND ANTI-AMERICANISM

Obama’s mother Ann then remarried; her second husband was Lolo Soetero Mangunharjo, a

student from Indonesia who was also studying at the University of Hawaii. Lolo Soetero later

became an official of the Director General’s office in the TNI Topography division of the

Indonesian Army, and still later worked as an oil company executive in Indonesia. Soetero was

studying in Hawaii under a program sponsored by the Indonesian government. At first the

Indonesian government was that of Sukarno, who had led the independence struggle against Dutch

colonialism in the 1940s. Sukarno, along with Nkrumah of Ghana, Nasser of Egypt, Tito of

Yugoslavia, and Nehru of India had founded the non-aligned movement at the Bandung conference

of 1955. This movement was made up of Third World developing countries who refused to

subordinate themselves permanently to the United States or the Soviet Union, but who tried to

constitute a third way in world affairs during the Cold War era.

In 1965, the CIA supported the Indonesian coup d’état of General Suharto, who overthrew the

Sukarno regime and initiated a bloody reign of terror which lasted for several years and which

30 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

included the massacre of several hundred thousand Indonesian communists, leftists, and supporters

of Sukarno. In 1967, when Soetero’s Indonesian passport was revoked because of political unrest in

Indonesia, Ann Dunham and Barack, who was then in first grade, accompanied him back to Jakarta.

It appears that Lolo Soetero was called back to Indonesia because as a student he was automatically

considered a politically unreliable supporter of the now ousted Sukarno regime. As soon as he

returned to Indonesia, Soetero was interrogated by the authorities and then was drafted into the

Indonesian army, spending at least a year in military service in New Guinea. Obama lived with his

mother and stepfather in Jakarta between 1968 and 1973. Obama attended local schools in Jakarta

from ages 6 to 10, where classes were taught in Indonesian. When he was in third grade he wrote an

essay saying that he wanted to become president, although he was not sure of what country.

ANN DUNHAM: RAGE AGAINST THE UGLY AMERICAN

During the time that Lolo was employed in the government relations office of an American oil

company, Ann was massively exposed to The Ugly American. Obama tells us: “sometimes I would

overhear him and my mother arguing in their bedroom, usually about her refusal to attend his

company dinner parties, where American businessmen from Texas and Louisiana would slap Lolo’s

back and boast about the palms they had greased to obtain the new offshore drilling rights, while

their wives would complain to my mother about the quality of the Indonesian help. He would ask

her how it would look for him to go alone, and remind her that these were her own people, and my

mother’s voice would rise to almost a shout. They are not my people.” Obama describes his mother

during this phase: “in a land where fatalism remained a necessary tool for enduring hardship, where

ultimate truths were kept separate from day-to-day realities, she was a lonely witness for secular

humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position-paper liberalism.” (Dreams 47, 50)

SENIOR AND LOLO: FAITHFUL TO JOHNNY WALKER, NOT THE KORAN

The two third-world men Ann Dunham had chosen to marry had a few things in common: both

were nominal Moslems whose devotion to Johnny Walter Black Label scotch whiskey was greater

than their devotion to the Koran. Her marriage to Lolo Soetero also ended in divorce, but she

remained in Indonesia until her life was almost over; she died in 1995. One witness to Ann

Dunham’s life during these years was one of her later professors; this was “Alice Dewey, a

granddaughter of the philosopher John Dewey and an emeritus professor of anthropology at the

University of Hawaii, who was the chairman of Ann Dunham’s Ph.D. thesis committee and became

a close friend over many years.” Alice Dewey told a reporter that ‘Dunham “divorced happily”

from Soetero—who died in 1987 of complications from a liver ailment—in part because “he

gradually became more and more like a Westerner and she became more and more like a Javanese.”

Obama told me he could only laugh at the false press accounts that portray Soetero as some kind of

radical Muslim who had sent him to an Islamic school. “I mean, you know, his big thing was

Johnny Walker Black, Andy Williams records,” Obama said. “I still remember ‘Moon River.’ He’d

be playing it, sipping, and playing tennis at the country club. That was his whole thing. I think their

expectations diverged fairly rapidly.” (Purdum, Vanity Fair, March 2008) Ann Dunham, we see,

had gone native in Indonesia. The commonality between the two men she married was Islam

according to some, but the deeper commonality would appear to have been Johnny Walker, in

which they both indulged heavily.

After Ann Dunham’s divorce from Lolo Soetero, she went back to live in Hawaii, where she

began the graduate study of anthropology. But she then returned to Indonesia to carry out her

I. Obama’s Roots in Polygamy and the Ford Foundation 31

anthropological field work. At this point, Barack Obama, aged about 9, was left with his

grandparents. Abandonment by his father was now thus followed by prolonged separation from his

mother, leading to unpredictable psychological consequences. If Larry Sinclair’s allegations are

accurate, Barack Obama is a closet bisexual, and the resulting potential for the blackmailing of a

possible future president is an issue which voters will obviously need to consider very carefully

before putting such a person into the White House.7

Alice Dewey further described Obama’s mother as ‘the most hardworking person I maybe ever

have met. And did it without seeming to. She was cheerful, down to earth. She absolutely was the

kind of person you wanted on your side in any situation, from a barroom brawl to an academic

argument, and she was always there for the little guy, particularly the little woman.” For most of the

1970s, 80s, and 90s, she shuttled between Hawaii and Indonesia, doing academic research and

paying the bills by teaching English or working for nonprofit organizations such as the Ford

Foundation.’ (Purdum, Vanity Fair, March 2008) The Ford Foundation looms large over Obama’s

life: it was his mother’s employer, and later the decisive influence over his church in Chicago.

ANN DUNHAM’S LATER YEARS: FORD FOUNDATION,

US AID, WORLD BANK OPERATIVE

Some journalistic accounts have correctly stressed that Ann Dunham in the latter part of her

career became a much more important person than is commonly recognized. One reason that she

has been underestimated is undoubtedly the attempt by the Obama campaign to make the

candidate’s mother appear as bland and conventional as possible. But she was in fact an

international civil servant who played a key role in developing the notion of microloans, one of the

main tokenist World Bank strategies for parrying the demand for real Third World economic and

infrastructural development under the reign of globalization. As Kim Chipman of Bloomberg

writes, ‘Barack Obama’s mother was most at home a world away from her Midwest roots, trekking

the old Silk Road or arranging small loans for weavers in Indonesia. “I’m so tired of seeing her

described as just a white woman from Kansas,” says Bronwen Solyom, 63, who first met Ann

Dunham in the 1970s when they were graduate students in anthropology at the University of Hawaii

in Honolulu. “She was much more than that.”’

Ann Dunham was also known for her later work as an anthropologist and social activist for Ford

Foundation counter-insurgency projects in Indonesia under the reactionary Suharto regime.

Chipman notes, ‘Terance Bigalke, who worked with Dunham at the Ford Foundation in Jakarta,

says she also fostered social activism in her children through her work on behalf of the world’s

poor. “She had such a strong concern for people who were in difficult circumstances economically,”

says Bigalke, 59. That concern led her to study the underground economy of Jakarta street vendors.’

Ann Dunham’s interest in anthropology had begun in Indonesia, Chipman found. Her first months

in Indonesia “sparked a lifelong passion that later led Dunham to return to Hawaii for graduate

studies in anthropology and an 800-page Ph.D. thesis on Indonesian blacksmithing. Her interest in

the local culture was aroused almost immediately, when she started teaching English to

Indonesians.” In effect, whatever her subjective intentions, Ann Dunham profiled the Indonesian

population for the United States Agency for International Development (US AID), the Ford

Foundation, the World Bank, all key institutions for dollar imperialism.

Chipman shows that Ann Dunham’s interest in anthropology was closely linked to her

contributions to imperialist strategy: ‘Friends say Dunham found her calling through her work,

which evolved from studying batik and ironwork to obtaining microfinancing for craftspeople,

32 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

especially women, in rural areas of developing countries. “She was a scholar who was one of the

first to see about microbanking,” Abercrombie says. In 1986, Dunham did a one-year development

project in Pakistan. That year, mother and daughter took a two-week journey along the old Silk

Route to China. Dunham’s work for the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan was followed

by stints at People’s Bank of Indonesia and Women’s World Banking in New York. She also did

consulting work for the World Bank and US AID. “She was getting to pretty high-powered

positions, working in world organizations as an expert, but she always liked the people at the

bottom.”’ Naturally, any anthropologist doing field work needs to feel or feign a sympathetic

interest in people being interviewed, the ethnographic material of the study. This does not mean that

the sentiments are always genuine, but the anthropologist will be more effective if they are.

According to the Time magazine cover-up cover story in April 2008, Dunham became an

important official of the Ford Foundation with special responsibility for women’s and gender issues.

Her own track record in serving as a doormat for her first husband, the imperious Obama Senior,

would hardly qualify her as a feminist. Dunham’s subjective devotion to third world people was by

all indications sincere. ‘In her 40s, Dunham talked about adopting a baby. “She loved kids, and we

were taking too long making her a grandmother,” says Maya, noting that her mother never got to

meet any of her grandchildren. After seeing a news report about the offspring of children in Korea

born to African-American soldiers, she decided that would be the perfect addition to her multiethnic

family, Dewey says. Dunham was “very specific about what she wanted,”’ Maya says. Instead,

Dunham found herself battling both ovarian and uterine cancer. Until her death, she displayed the

unflappable temperament that she passed on to Obama, Dewey says. “She took it in stride,” she

says. “She didn’t fuss about it.”’ (Kim Chipman, “Obama Drive Gets Inspiration From His White

Mom Born in Kansas,” Bloomberg, February 11, 2008) Obama’s mother thus evokes a stoic or

quietist quality which we have seen in her passivity when she was abandoned by her first husband.

If, as candidate Obama categorically states in his own book, Ann Dunham represented the

decisive influence on his formative years, what can we conclude to be the content of that influence?

We have followed Ann Dunham from her youth as a provincial atheist and radical left liberal,

through her subsequent phases as a communist sympathizer, Third World enthusiast, anti-racist,

anthropologist, and to her final stage as a consultant to the Ford Foundation, US AID, and the

World Bank. Is there an invariant to this process? Ann Dunham was certainly concerned about the

problems of global poverty and economic underdevelopment, but she appears to have been

incapable of understanding which institutions were responsible for holding back mankind’s

economic progress. Worse, she ended up by going to work for precisely those institutions. Who

then, in her mind, was responsible for underdevelopment?

The acerbic but perceptive commentator Spengler of the Asia Times believes that he has

discovered the ruling passion of both Ann Dunham and her son Barack Obama, and that this ruling

passion is radical anti-Americanism. Spengler’s perspective is doubtless tinged with the cultural and

historical pessimism of Mitteleuropa, but his findings nevertheless compel careful attention.

Spengler starts by noting that

Soetero had been sponsored as a graduate student by one of the most radical of all Third World

governments…. When Ann Dunham chose to follow Lolo Soetero to Indonesia in 1967, she

brought the six-year-old Barack into the kitchen of anti-colonialist outrage, immediately

following one of the worst episodes of civil violence in post-war history. Dunham’s experience

in Indonesia provided the material for a doctoral dissertation celebrating the hardiness of local

I. Obama’s Roots in Polygamy and the Ford Foundation 33

cultures against the encroaching metropolis. It was entitled, “Peasant blacksmithing in

Indonesia: surviving against all odds.

In this respect Dunham remained within the mainstream of her discipline. Anthropology broke

into popular awareness with Margaret Mead’s long-discredited Coming of Age in Samoa (1928),

which offered a falsified ideal of sexual liberation in the South Pacific as an alternative to the

supposedly repressive West. Mead’s work was one of the founding documents of the sexual

revolution of the 1960s, and anthropology faculties stood at the left-wing fringe of American

universities.’ (Spengler, Asia Times, Feb. 26, 2008) It might be more accurate to call this left-wing

fringe the postmodern fringe.

The specific brand of leftism in play here is once again Rousseau’s doctrine of the noble savage,

which unquestionably provides the foundation for the anthropology of the entire 20th century.

Rousseau’s argument was that the original sin of human civilization had been to develop beyond the

most primitive stage of Paleolithic hunting, gathering, and foraging. The fall from grace occurred

with the introduction of village life, metallurgy, and most of all the state, with accompanying

notions of property. Rousseau, who had lived in Venice as a secretary to the French ambassador,

asserted that it was civilization itself which made human individuals evil and corrupt. The healing

of civilization therefore required a return to the reign of the noble savage — meaning in practice the

retrogression of civilization back to the old stone age. Margaret Mead’s fake scholarship about the

sexual mores of the South Sea Islanders represented a part of this effort to put civilization into

reverse gear. Various modern day thinkers, from radical environmentalists to neocon theoreticians

like Leo Strauss have also endorsed this notion of turning back the clock of civilized progress: it is a

very, very reactionary notion, and would of course imply genocide on an unimaginable scale if ever

attempted.

Spengler goes on to note: “Barack Obama received at least some instruction in the Islamic faith

of his father and went with him to the mosque, but the importance of this experience is vastly

overstated by conservative commentators who seek to portray Obama as a Muslim of sorts. Radical

anti-Americanism, rather than Islam, was the reigning faith in the Dunham household. In the

Muslim world of the 1960s, nationalism rather than radical Islam was the ideology of choice among

the enraged. Radical Islam did not emerge as a major political force until the nationalism of a

Gamal Abdel Nasser or a Sukarno failed.” It might be more accurate to state that radical Islam was

one of several ideological counteroffensives launched by Anglo-American imperialism during the

1950s in order to undercut the vast appeal of Nasser, Sukarno, and the other militant nonaligned

leaders.

OBAMA: AN ANTHROPOLOGIST PROFILING

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS ETHNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL

Spengler comes to the following chilling conclusion: “Barack Obama is a clever fellow who

imbibed hatred of America with his mother’s milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of

education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American

culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives

with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at

emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is

practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States.” (Spengler, Asia

Times, Feb. 26, 2008)

34 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

It is in this context that we should interpret the following comment from Ann Dunham’s former

anthropology professor, Alice Dewey. ‘“It’s too bad she’s not here,” Alice Dewey says. “She’d be

saying, with a little chuckle, ‘Here’s one of our own’ and ‘He’s going to show them.’” (Kim

Chipman, “Obama Drive Gets Inspiration From His White Mom Born in Kansas,” Bloomberg,

February 11, 2008) This raises the question of a possible future president who would be animated

by a resentment of or even hatred towards the American people, or at least towards the blue-collar

or white lower middle-class sectors of the American people, the ones most frequently accused by

wealthy elitists of harboring racial prejudice. Obama may indeed harbor such feelings of hatred or

resentment. It does no good to object that Obama does not propose an explicit program of using

austerity and sacrifice (as demanded by the Trilateral financier oligarchy) as a means for punishing

blue-collar American and the white working poor for their alleged racist crimes; Obama is much too

slick an operator to make any such admissions. If anything, it is Jeremiah Wright who has already

made the admissions for him. Obama approaches his task of campaigning with the cynical and

manipulative detachment of an anthropologist carrying out field work among some old stone age

people, like the Yanomami Indians: he is treating the American people as ethnographic material in

the great Trilateral experiment of depression crisis management, and the results will be horrifying.

“HE’S GOING TO SHOW THEM”

Precisely what is it, we must ask, that Obama is going to show the American people if he should

succeed in taking power? Will he proceed to act out the deeply felt resentments of his mother

against American society? Will he exact revenge for the racial slights and humiliations which he

believes he has undergone?

It was during his time in Indonesia that young Barack Obama underwent a dramatic experience

which helped to establish the primacy of race and racial identity in his thinking. (Dreams 51 ff.) He

was at the time nine years old, and his mother was working at the US Embassy in Jakarta. While

sitting in an office waiting for his mother, young Obama was looking through some issues of Life

magazine. Here he found an article which he says he experienced as an “ambush attack.” The article

described the plight of a black man who had decided to use a harsh chemical treatment in order to

lighten the color of his skin. Obama says he was horrified to see a picture of the man, whose skin

had been flayed off by the chemicals, leaving him scarred and disfigured. ‘“I imagine other black

children, then and now, undergoing similar moments of revelation,” Obama later wrote. According

to a recent magazine article, Obama’s account cannot be taken at face value because ‘no such photo

exists, according to historians at [Life] magazine. No such photos, no such article. When asked

about the discrepancy, Obama said in a recent interview, “It might have been in Ebony or it might

have been ... who knows what it was?” (At the request of the Chicago Tribune, archivists at Ebony

searched their catalogue of past articles, none of which matched what Obama recalled.) In fact, it is

surprising, based on interviews with more than two dozen people who knew Obama during his

nearly four years in Indonesia, that it would take a photograph in a magazine to make him conscious

of the fact that some people might treat him differently in part because of the color of his skin.’

(Purdum, Vanity Fair, March 2008) Perhaps Obama is bending the facts in order to document what

he considers to be his own growth in personal awareness from a relative indifference to racial

matters to race and racial identity as a central concern, which he obviously believed by 1995 —

perhaps under the influence of such race theoreticians as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright — to

represent a superior level of awareness. Obama’s mother Ann Dunham died in 1995 of ovarian

cancer, a few months after the publication of Dreams from My Father.

I. Obama’s Roots in Polygamy and the Ford Foundation 35

OBAMA AND ISLAM

Because Obama’s biological father and stepfather were both at least nominally Moslems, and

because Obama attended Moslem schools for at least part of the time that he lived in Indonesia, a

controversy has arisen due to the accusation by right-wing commentators that Obama remains a

crypto-Moslem. In an attempt to answer this drumbeat, on January 24, 2007, the Obama campaign

released the following statement: “To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not

raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in

Chicago.” But this seemed to dodge the issue of Obama’s attendance at the Moslem schools in

Indonesia. On March 14th, 2007, the Obama campaign offered this statement to correct their

previous statement: “Obama has never been a practicing Muslim.” The statement added that as a

child, Obama had spent time in the neighborhood Islamic center during his stay in Jakarta. In his

book Dreams from My Father, Obama talks of studying the Quran and describes the public school

as “a Muslim school.” (See Dreams) The testimony of Obama’s half-sister is also relevant: “My

whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim,” said Maya Soetoro-Ng,

Mr. Obama’s younger half sister. But Mr. Obama attended a Catholic school and then a Muslim

public school….” (New York Times, April 30, 2007)

Tine Hahiyary was one of Obama’s teachers and the principal of the school he attended in

Indonesia from 1971 through 1989, and has testified that Obama attended Islamic religious training

during his time at the school. His teacher was named Maimunah and she resided in the Puncak area,

the Cianjur Regency. “I remembered that he had studied mengaji” (or mengagi, meaning rote

recitation of the Quran), Tine reported.8 Obama himself writes that “In the Muslim school, the

teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies.” (See Dreams)

A blogger from Jakarta has written more recently that ‘The actual usage of the word ‘mengaji’ in

Indonesian and Malaysian societies means the study of learning to recite the Quran in the Arabic

language rather than the native tongue. ‘Mengagi’ is a word and a term that is accorded the highest

value and status in the mindset of fundamentalist societies here in Southeast Asia. To put it quite

simply, ‘mengaji classes’ are not something that a non-practicing or so-called moderate Muslim

family would ever send their child to. To put this in a Christian context, this is something above and

beyond simply enrolling your child in Sunday school classes. The fact that Obama had attended

mengaji classes is well-known in Indonesia and has left many there wondering just when Obama is

going to come out of the closet.” In another internet report posted in 2007, Obama’s classmate Rony

Amiris, now a manager of the Bank Mandiri in Jakarta, describes him as being a devout Muslim.

“Barry was previously quite religious in Islam,” Amiris recalled. “We previously often asked him to

the prayer room close to the house. If he was wearing a sarong he looked funny,” added Rony. In

2007, Emirsyah Satar, CEO of Garuda Indonesia, stated in an internet interview: “He [Obama] was

often in the prayer room wearing a sarong, at that time.”9 A blogger calling himself American Expat

in Southeast Asia, who says he has lived in Indonesia for some 20 years, has written on

laotze.blogspot.com that “Barack Hussein Obama might have convinced some Americans that he is

no longer a Muslim, but so far he has not convinced many in the world’s most populous Muslim

country who still see him as a Muslim and a crusader for Islam and world peace. Barack Hussein

Obama’s race, his staunch opposition to the war in Iraq, his sympathy to Islam and Muslims

worldwide and his Muslim heritage receive Indonesian media coverage. There is no mention of his

apostasy.”10

Mussolini, as part of his propaganda towards the Moslems of North Africa and the Middle East,

described himself once as holding a Bible in one hand and a Koran in the other. Napoleon did the

36 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

same. Hitler appealed to Moslems living under British rule from Egypt to Afghanistan by dropping

hints that he was either sympathetic to Islam or else actually a Moslem, and many Moslems were

either flattered by these references or actually believed them. Mussolini and Hitler were in reality

atheists.

OBAMA’S SIBLINGS: NINE CHANCES FOR A NEW BILLY CARTER OR NEIL BUSH

The siblings of sitting presidents have often been a source of corruption and scandal. Dwight

Eisenhower was lucky in that his brother Milton was eminently respectable and served as the

president of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. But Richard Nixon had much trouble with his

brother Donald. Bill Clinton was embarrassed by his brother Roger, and this has also been the lot of

Hillary Clinton in regard to her brother Hugh. George Bush the elder harvested negative publicity

from the cooperation of his brother Prescott Bush Jr. with Japanese organized crime figures. A

famous presidential brother implicated in criminal or unethical activity was Billy Carter, who

accepted large bribes from the government of Libya. Most damaging of all to the taxpayers has been

Neil Bush, the younger brother of the current tenant of the White House, whose role in the

bankruptcy of Silverado Savings and Loan cost the Resolution Trust Corporation upwards of $3

billion. Neil Bush was also scheduled to meet with Scott Hinckley, the elder brother of purported

lone assassin John Hinckley Jr., on the day after John Hinckley opened fire on President Reagan.

(See Tarpley, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, 1992)

But all of this pales in comparison with the nepotism, graft and corruption we are likely to

witness in an Obama presidency. Obama has an estimated total of 9 siblings, all half brothers and

half sisters. One who has appeared in his campaign is Maya Sotero-Ng, a daughter of Ann Dunham

and Lolo Soetero. The offspring of Barack Hussein Obama Senior are thought to number eight in

all, by three mothers in addition to Ann Dunham.

CHAPTER II: COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND

RECRUITMENT BY ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI

… the intelligence community has deposited provocateurs in at least some of our schools so that

the conditions necessary for learning have been, through the ensuing turmoil, destroyed. –

Vincent J. Salandria, 1971.

Obama was fortunate enough to enjoy some very special educational opportunities. These

opportunities were not due to any special intellectual ability or capacity for hard work on the part of

our future candidate. They were rather due to the fact that his mother by now had become an

important operative for the Ford Foundation, and the foundation community takes care of its own

because of the obvious advantages of recruiting from households in which the oligarchical,

multicultural, and postmodern values of the foundation world are assumed as axiomatic. Obama’s

mother and grandparents clearly did everything they could to advance his upward mobility through

schooling, and this paid off when he was accepted into the most exclusive prep school in Hawaii.

Because of Obama’s much-advertised racial identity, there can also be no doubt that preferential

admissions for minorities based on affirmative action must also have played a significant role.

Obama is therefore not the product of a meritocracy or a career open to talents; he is rather the fruit

of special treatment meted out under the aegis of minority quotas favored by the foundation world

as the keystone of their strategy for keeping the American people so fragmented as to perpetuate

oligarchical financier rule. If we need to generalize about Obama, we can say that his hardware was

provided by the Ford Foundation and its various lesser foundation satellites, while his software was

added later through his association with the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberger Group in

the person of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the evil genius of the Jimmy Carter administration of 1977-

1981. To these phases of Obama’s story we now turn.

ELITIST PREPPY AT THE PUNAHOU SCHOOL OF HAWAII

When Obama was ten years old, his mother Ann sent him back to Honolulu to live with his

maternal grandparents so he could attend the prestigious Punahou School, an elite and exclusive

prep school whose alumni also include America Online founder Steve Case: ‘“Ann saw first of all

that he was so bright that he needed to come and really be challenged by a good school,” says Benji

Bennington, 73, the retired curator of the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii. Dunham

also hoped that “maybe he’d meet a few blacks while here, because he was not meeting them in

Jakarta.” The family was reunited about a year later when Dunham separated from Soetero and

returned to Honolulu for graduate school.’ “He was very much the patriarch as a young person,”

says sister Maya. “Our mother was incredibly strong but also incredibly sensitive. She would cry

easily. He was always protective of her.” When Dunham moved back to Jakarta for her

anthropology field work, Barack saw his mother and half-sister only for Christmas and summer

break.’ (Kim Chipman, Bloomberg, op. cit.)

Obama entered the fifth grade at Punahou and stayed there until he graduated from high school

with honors in 1979. He reports that he was one of three black students at the school, although there

were many Asians and Pacific islanders. Obama’s Dreams from My Father provides incidents of

Obama’s feeling of racial humiliation while attending this school and chronicles his embrace of a

specific black or African-American racial identity as a matter of his own deliberate and conscious

choice. This path of development may be compared with Hitler’s discovery of his own Germanic

38 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

racial identity which forms an important part of Mein Kampf. There is, however, some question as

to whether Obama’s account of his repeated racial mortification by racist or thoughtless whites is

accurate, or whether it represents a fictitious construct designed to bolster his credibility for his later

career in Chicago as a black identity politician. Obama was on the basketball team at Punahou and

seems to have enjoyed some prestige. Some accounts report that, while he was a student in the late

1970s, he carved his name in the pavement outside the cafeteria of Punahou School. These graffiti

reportedly read: “King Obama.”

Here begins Obama’s intense, consuming preoccupation with race, the great central issue of his

subsequent life, in spite of what he now says. He learns about the imperative of race from a black

friend named Ray: “Our rage at the white world needed no object, he seemed to be telling me, no

independent confirmation; it could be switched on and off at our pleasure.” (Dreams 81) Obama

experiences this assumption of a racial identity as a narrowing and constriction of the spirit of his

own personality which he is nonetheless driven to accept: “following this maddening logic, the only

thing you could choose as your own was withdrawal into a smaller and smaller coil of rage, until

being black meant only the knowledge of your own powerlessness, of your own defeat. And the

final irony: should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they would have a name for

that too, a name that could cage you just as good. Paranoid. Militant. Violent. N****r.” (Dreams

85)

During one phase, Obama became intensely preoccupied with the literary expression of his own

situation as found in the works of such writers as James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, Langston Hughes,

Richard Wright, W.E.B. DuBois, and Malcolm X. All but the last of this number, he judged, had

been consumed by anguish, doubt, and self-contempt. Almost all of them had “eventually

succumbed to its corrosive force,” and these had ended up as “exhausted, bitter men, the devil at

their heels.” (Dreams 86) Malcolm X, Obama found, was better and stronger: “even as I imagined

myself following Malcolm’s call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he’d

once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might

somehow be expunged. I know that, for Malcolm, that wish would never be incidental.” (Dreams

86)

The Daily Mail stresses Obama’s later account of racial humiliation at Punahou: ‘…while there,

says Mr Obama, he was tortured by fellow pupils – who let out monkey hoots – and turned into a

disenchanted teenage rebel, experimenting with cocaine and marijuana. Even his grandparents were

troubled by dark skin, he says in his book, recalling how once his grandmother complained about

being pestered by a beggar. “You know why she’s so scared?” he recalls his grandfather saying.

“She told me the fella was black.” Mr Obama says his soaring ‘dream’ of a better America grew out

of his ‘hurt and pain.’ This is the incident Obama referred to later in his Philadelphia speech on

racism of March 2008, after the first phase of the Jeremiah Wright scandal had exploded. The

British reporters doubt that this was the real story: ‘“Friends, however, remember his time at school

rather differently. He was a spoiled high-achiever, they recall, who seemed as fond of his

grandparents as they were of him. He affectionately signed a school photo of himself to them, using

their pet names, Tut and Gramps. The caption says: “Thanks... for all the good times.” He worked

on the school’s literary magazine and wore a white suit, of the style popular with New York writers

like Tom Wolf at the time. One of his former classmates, Alan Lum, said: “Hawaii is such a melting

pot that it didn’t occur to me when we were growing up that he might have problems about being

one of the few African-Americans at the school. Us kids didn’t see colour. He was easy-going and

well-liked.” Lon Wysard, who also attended the academy, said the budding politician was in fact

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 39

idolised for his keen sportsmanship. “He was the star basketball player and always had a ball in his

hand wherever he was,” Wysard recalled.’ (London Daily Mail, January 27, 2007)

OBAMA AS EXISTENTIALIST POET

One of Obama’s classmates and friends during this time was Keith “Ray” Kakugawa, who later

observed that “Barry’s biggest struggles then were missing his parents. His biggest struggles were

his feelings of abandonment.” Ray later went deeply into the drug culture and served three years in

prison because of illegal narcotics, emerging as homeless in the spring of 2007. A window into the

mentality of the youthful Obama is available in the form of a short poem he wrote during these

years, and which is quoted by Purdum in Vanity Fair. Purdum reports that Obama ‘immersed

himself in the writings of James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, Langston Hughes, and Malcolm X, only to

find the same anguish, the same self-doubt, a self-contempt that neither irony nor intellect seemed

able to deflect,” as he did in this poem for the school literary magazine, Ka Wai Ola:

I saw an old, forgotten man

On an old, forgotten road.

Staggering and numb under the glare of the

Spotlight. His eyes, so dull and grey,

Slide from right to left, to right,

Looking for his life, misplaced in a

Shallow, muddy gutter long ago.

I am found, instead.

Seeking a hiding place, the night seals us together.

A transient spark lights his face, and in my honor,

He pulls out forgotten dignity from under his flaking coat,

And walks a straight line along the crooked world.

When I mentioned the poem to Obama, he at first had no memory of it. After I read it to him, he

said, “That’s not bad. I wrote that in high school? You know, it sounds in spirit that it’s talking a

little bit about my grandfather.”’ (Purdum, Vanity Fair, March 2008) Based on this evidence,

Obama was most likely a typical teenage existentialist, preoccupied above all with his own feeling

states, self-doubt, and pessimism. It is curious that he cannot remember a statement as personal as

this, even when shown it years later. Is Obama’s memory still intact? And if not, why not? A whole

range of possibilities, from drug abuse to early onset Alzheimer’s to simple prevarication need to be

considered.

HAWAII CPUSA CELL: FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS

During Obama’s high school years in Hawaii, he came into close contact with an older black

man whom he described in his memoir as Frank. This turns out to be one Frank Marshall Davis, a

devoted long-term member of the Communist Party of the United States. Marshall had moved to

Honolulu from Kansas in 1948; according to the pro-communist history Professor Gerald Horne of

the University of Houston, Davis made the move “at the suggestion of his good friend Paul

Robeson,” the well-known black singer and actor who was also a CPUSA member. Both Davis and

Robeson were from Chicago, and this may have something to do with Obama’s later decision to

move there. ‘As Horne describes it, Davis “befriended” a “Euro-American family” that had

“migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child

with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who

40 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago.” (Cliff Kincaid, “Obama’s

Communist Mentor,” Accuracy in Media, February 18, 2008) Obama’s association with a

prominent Communist furnished the basis for the charge made against Obama by Allen Keyes

during the Senate campaign of 2004 that he was a “hard-core academic Marxist.” Frank Marshall

Davis was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Obama was

almost like a son to Davis, listening to his poetry and hanging on each word of his advice. Davis,

along with some other older black men, appear to have constituted a sort of CPUSA cell or sleeper

cell in Hawaii. Obama was taken to visit them in his early teens by his grandfather, Stanley

Dunham. Davis was a part of this now-informal group.

Frank Marshall Davis was mentioned in the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive

Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii as a CPUSA member. The House Un-

American Activities Committee (HUAC) accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front

organizations. The identification of Obama’s “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis is confirmed by

Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand libertarian activist, researcher and blogger in a posting of March

2007. Obama writes that he knew “a poet named Frank” who was a purveyor of “hard-earned

knowledge,” and advice. Frank had had “some modest notoriety once,” and was “a contemporary of

Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago...,” Frank was now “pushing

eighty.” Obama was impressed that “Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self” gave him advice

before he left Hawaii for Occidental College in 1979, when Obama was 18.

Davis has been seen by some critics as a precursor to Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. There is

at least one book-length study of Davis entitled Black Moods: Collected Poems of Frank Marshall

Davis by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas. In his review of Tidwell’s

study published in the summer/fall 2003 issue of African-American Review, James A. Miller of

George Washington University comments: “In Davis’s case, his political commitments led him to

join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War II – even though he never

publicly admitted his Party membership.” Tidwell is an expert on the life and writings of Davis.

The decrepit intellectual periphery of the CPUSA has been notably stirred up by Obama’s

candidacy, doubtless in part because of Davis. Professor Horne, who is a contributing editor of the

Communist Party journal Political Affairs, mentioned the Obama-David connection in March 2007

at the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University; Horne’s

talk was entitled “Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party.” Davis also figures

prominently in The New Red Negro: The Literary Left and African-American Poetry, 1930-1946 by

James Edward Smethurst, associate professor of Afro-American studies at the University of

Massachusetts-Amherst. Here Davis appears as a black writer who remained loyal to the CPUSA

even after Stalin’s infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact with Hitler, at a time when other black

intellectuals like Richard Wright broke with the CPUSA line. For Frank Marshall Davis,

communism was the god that did not fail. But what was Frank’s understanding of communism?

Obama writes in Dreams from My Father that he saw “Frank” only a few days before he left

Hawaii for college, and that Davis seemed just as radical as ever. Davis called college “an advanced

degree in compromise” and warned Obama not to forget his “people” and not to “start believing

what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that s**t.” Davis also

complained about foot problems, the result of “trying to force African feet into European shoes,”

Obama wrote. Horne gloated that the Obama-Davis connection will emerge as a theme of wide

study in the near future. Horne says that Obama’s giving credit to Davis will be important in

history. “At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 41

instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, Living the

Blues and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine critically the

Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will

also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has

befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside,” he said.

Dr. Kathryn Takara, a professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Hawaii at

Manoa agrees that Davis is the “Frank” in Obama’s book. Takara wrote her dissertation on Davis

and interviewed him frequently between 1972 and 1987, before Davis died. Takara concludes that

Davis demonstrated “an acute sense of race relations and class struggle throughout America and the

world.” For her, Davis was a “socialist realist.” Davis had been urged by Paul Robeson and Harry

Bridges, the pro-CPUSA head of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), to

become a columnist for the Honolulu Record where he could work to advance the communist cause.

Takara sums up Davis’s program at that time as “freedom, radicalism, solidarity, labor unions, due

process, peace, affirmative action, civil rights, Negro History week, and true Democracy to fight

imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy. He urged coalition politics.”

COMMUNIST PARTY USA: OBAMA IS MARX’S OLD MOLE OF REVOLUTION

To advance this ideological Walpurgisnacht to an even more monstrous level, the CPUSA

organ, People’s World Weekly, recently published a letter from CPUSA supporter Frank Chapman

gloating over Obama’s victory in the Iowa caucuses. Chapman commented: “Obama’s victory was

more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of

struggle. … Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes

burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is

the old revolutionary ‘mole,’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.”

(Cliff Kincaid, “Obama’s Communist Mentor,” Accuracy in Media, February 18, 2008) The

CPUSA has formally endorsed Obama for the presidency.

Obama may well have learned a lot more from Davis than dialectical materialism. There are

indications scattered across the internet that Davis was bisexual. Officially he was married to Helen

Canfield David of Chicago, reportedly a woman of some social standing.11 If Obama’s mentor of

those years in fact had homosexual proclivities, this would be significant in explaining the later

bisexual features of Obama’s life.

Shortly before leaving Hawaii to go to Occidental College, Obama experiences one of his many

racial epiphanies when he learns that his grandmother Toot has been frightened in the street by a

black man whom she suspects of being a mugger. Obama recounts that when he heard of this

incident, “the words were like a fist in my stomach, and I wobbled to regain my composure. In my

steadiest voice, I told [Gramps] that such an attitude bothered me, too, but assured him that Toot’s

fears would pass and that we should give her a ride in the meantime. […] after they left, I sat on the

edge of my bed and thought about my grandparents. They had sacrificed again and again for me.

They had poured all their lingering hopes into my success. Never had they given me reason to

doubt their love; I doubted if they ever would. And yet I knew that men who might easily have

been my brothers could still inspire their rawest fears.” (Dreams 89) When it comes to matters of

race, we have already learned that Obama is jumpy as an eyeball, and here his racial

hypersensitivity is displayed once again. In recent years, we have had many illustrious

representatives of the American black community come forward to acknowledge that they, too, are

sometimes uneasy when they are approached by aggressive black panhandlers in the streets.

42 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Obama, by contrast, continues to be so obsessed with this trifling incident that he included it in his

notorious Philadelphia speech on race of March 18, 2008, where he compared the fears of a woman

in late middle age with the violent invectives of the foundation-funded racist provocateur Jeremiah

Wright. When it comes to matters of race, Obama clearly loses all sense of reality and proportions,

and there is no reason to assume that anything whatsoever has changed in this regard.

“FRANK” – MARXIST OR GAY EXISTENTIALIST?

If Frank Marshall David had been a thorough Marxist, that would already have been bad enough.

Karl Marx, as I have shown in Surviving the Cataclysm, was in most respects a kept ideologue of

British intelligence, sponsored by David Urquhardt of the British Foreign Office, with a mission of

fomenting destabilization by pitting workers against industrialists in continental Europe, and with a

secondary task of whipping up sentiment against Russia. Like Mazzini the ultra-nationalist and

Bakunin the hyper-anarchist, Marx the apostle of plebeian revolution was a prong of an ideological

deployment by British intelligence to divide and conquer the main rivals of the British Empire. In

an age when the oppressive dominion of the British Empire, then at the apogee of its power, was the

leading reactionary political fact in the world, Marx chose to ignore that fact almost completely, and

focus almost entirely on the opportunities for conflict that were emerging during the process of

industrialization in the countries the British did not yet completely control. Marx, in other words,

had a permanent blind spot when it came to the mixture of Whig Venetian party aristocrats and

financiers who populated the City of London, and this blind spot lives on in his followers today.

Still, Marx as a serious charlatan does reject Malthus, and does admit that economic science must

face the problem of social reproduction, something that cruder charlatans like Malthus and Adam

Smith are not willing to address. There is every reason to believe that Frank Marshal Davis imbibed

the major negative aspects of Marx without absorbing the minor positive ones.

“Frank” was almost certainly a member of the Communist Party USA. But the quality of his

assimilation of Marxism is quite another matter. The level of Marxist theoretical development in the

CPUSA was notoriously very low. The lack of theory in the old CPUSA was one of the factors that

made it so easy for the FBI to infiltrate it to the point of becoming a majority. Especially when it

came to recruiting in the black community, the CPUSA was infamously opportunistic, always ready

to jettison dialectical materialism when it appeared possible to recruit some new members on the

basis of resistance to white racism. Based on what he says, Frank is not interested in proletarian

internationalism in the struggle against world imperialism. He thinks that white people cannot

understand his experiences as an oppressed black man. He rejects the unity of world history. Frank

has nothing to do with Marxism. He is already a black cultural nationalist, with hardly a veneer of

Marxist phraseology. Frank is more of an existentialist than a Marxist himself.

Immediately after the incident just reported, Obama narrates that he went to visit Frank Marshall

Davis. From Davis, Obama received quantities of whiskey accompanied by a lecture on the

incommunicability of race-based experience to persons on the other side of the color line, namely

Obama’s grandparents, the “white folk.” Frank tells Obama that his grandfather is basically a good

man but that the black experience for Gramps is a book sealed with seven seals: “He can’t know

me,” says the communist Frank, “not the way I know him. Maybe some of these Hawaiians can, or

the Indians on the reservation. They’ve seen their fathers humiliated. Their mothers desecrated.

But your grandfather will never know what that feels like.” (Dreams 90) Frank concludes: “what

I’m trying to tell you is, your grandma’s right to be scared. She’s at least as right as Stanley is. She

understands that black people have a reason to hate. That’s just how it is. For your sake, I wish it

were otherwise. But it’s not. So you might as well get used to it.” (Dreams 91)

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 43

OBAMA AS RACE-BASED EXISTENTIALIST: “UTTERLY ALONE”

By all indications, this is the experience which made Obama not only a confirmed racialist

ideologue, but also a thoroughgoing existentialist in the tradition of Heidegger and Jaspers. Obama

recounts the moment thus: “The earth shook under my feet, ready to crack open at any moment. I

stopped, trying to steady myself and knew for the first time that I was utterly alone.” (Dreams 91)

This experience is of vital importance for understanding the mentality of the adult Obama. If

Obama had been taught Marxism by Frank Marshall Davis, he would at this point say that he had

decided to submerge his own existence in the greater reality of the march of class struggle through

history. But he does not say that he is part of the vanguard of millions of workers. He says rather

that he is absolutely, metaphysically alone. The finding here is that Obama was by this point a

convinced existentialist, and that Obama’s embrace of existentialism, the point of view which

pervades so much of Dreams, gave him the prerequisites for becoming a full-fledged disciple of

Frantz Fanon, an implacable enemy of Western civilization, proto-fascist, an apostle of purgative

violence in the Sorel-Mussolini tradition. Obama spent years wallowing in existentialist self-pity.

Obama’s eager embrace of the existentialist world outlook provided some of the indispensable

preconditions for his current career as a mob orator. It has equipped him to write his speeches out

of a bag of alienation, despair, and absolute metaphysical loneliness, appealing with some

semblance of pathos to the desire of his target audiences for community, hope, and change. At the

same time, however, Obama’s existentialism has provided him with his own personal path to

fascism.

Many American readers may be surprised at the idea that existentialism is somehow connected

to fascism, or can serve as an immediate prelude to fascism. This is probably because of the

popular identification in this country of existentialism with such French writers as Jean-Paul Sartre

and Albert Camus, both of whom were at pains to make a show of having supported the resistance

against the Nazi occupation of their country. Later research has raised doubts about how much

Sartre ever did to oppose the Nazis. Sartre was a disciple of Heidegger who took part for a while in

a literary group with anti-occupation overtones, but this group, called Socialisme et liberté, “soon

dissolved and Sartre decided to write, instead of being involved in active resistance. He then wrote

Being and Nothingness, The Flies and No Exit, none of which was censored by the Germans, and

also contributed to both legal and illegal literary magazines….the French philosopher and resistant

Vladimir Jankelevitch criticized Sartre’s lack of political commitment during the German

occupation, and interpreted his further struggles for liberty as an attempt to redeem himself.”

(Wikipedia) (Obama clearly knows the French existentialists.)

We must remember that Sartre and Camus represent lesser gods in the international existentialist

pantheon which is actually presided over by Martin Heidegger. Heidegger was a full throated, cardcarrying

member of the National Socialist party who delivered a public paean to Hitler in the form

of his inaugural address as rector of the University of Freiburg. It is in this speech that Heidegger

made the comment that the decision in favor of National Socialism had already been made by the

youngest part of the German nation, thereby validating the fascist myth that it is youth and youth

alone who are the arbiters of the political destinies of great nations — an absurd fiction which

echoes through the empty vessels of the Obama lemming legions. In Obama, we see the intimate

epistemological and ethical proximity of existentialism and fascism which is exemplified by

Heidegger, the world’s leading existentialist thinker and a Nazi at the same time.

44 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

EXISTENTIALISM AS ANTECHAMBER TO FASCISM

The Hungarian Marxist philosopher Georg Lukacs has provided the most detailed study of the

ideological precursors of fascism and National Socialism in his 1952 book Die Zerstörung der

Vernunft (The Destruction of Reason). Lukacs’ summary of the existentialists Heidegger and

Jaspers, both much touted by US and British philosophy departments, may give us some insights

into Obama’s mentality today. Lukacs sums up: “The philosophy of Jaspers as well as that of

Heidegger concludes without any achievements but nevertheless with extremely important social

consequences. Heidegger and Jaspers take extremely individualistic, petty bourgeois-aristocratic

relativism and irrationalism to their most extreme consequences. They end up in the ice age, at the

North Pole, in a world which has become empty, a senseless chaos, nothingness as the surroundings

of humanity; and their despair about themselves, about their incorrigible loneliness is the inner

content of their philosophy. […] Through this, the general mood of despair in broad layers of the

German bourgeoisie and above all of the intelligentsia was exacerbated, while possible tendencies

towards protest were discouraged, and the aggressive reactionaries received through this a

significant assistance.” (Lukacs 457) If fascism was able to educate wide sectors of the German

intelligentsia into a more than benevolent neutrality, no small amount of the credit was due to the

philosophy of Heidegger and Jaspers.” In the same way that existentialism helped to open the door

for fascism in central Europe, we can see that existentialism served as a kind of prelude to further

fascist developments in Obama’s own mental life.

Lukacs is especially interested in the role of despair in fascist ideology, both before and after

1945. Lukacs writes: “The mere word ‘despair’ as content of this ideology is not enough to explain

it, because we have seen that Heidegger’s despair was actually a direct preparation for Hitlerism.

[…] We are dealing here with something different with something greater and something more

concrete. It is not just general despair about all human activity; just despair has led thinkers from

Schopenhauer to Heidegger into the reactionary camp or at least into collaboration with the

reactionaries. [Post-1945 existentialists] are not only in despair about things in general; their doubts

and their despair are directed above all against those glad tidings which they are supposed to be

proclaiming, namely the defense of the ‘free world,’” understood as the Anglo-American sphere of

world power.” (Lukacs 704) For Lukacs, the pre-1945 fascists displayed cynical nihilism, while the

post-1945 fascists have been characterized by cynical hypocrisy. This is a shoe that may well fit

Obama.

We are arguing, in other words, that Obama’s embrace of the philosophy of academic

postmodernism has constituted an important stage in his development towards fascism. The

postmodernism of which we speak has of course been the dominant intellectual outlook among

most college and university faculties since about the 1970s. Intellectually speaking, it is a thin and

unappetizing gruel, suitable for crabbed little people operating in a phase of imperialist decline.

The starting point of postmodernism is the despair, disorientation, demoralization, and defeatism

which emerged from the collapse of the positive social movements of the 1960s. From its very

beginning, postmodernism has been much more interested in race and gender than in class.

Postmodernism is an unsavory stew of existentialism, structuralism, deconstructionism,

anthropological relativism, and Malthusianism, all thrown together in the cauldron of historical

pessimism and cultural pessimism. The aspect of relativism has been especially important for the

rejection and destruction of classical culture with its indispensable notions of human reason, human

freedom, human greatness, and the heroic sense of the world historical individual. Instead, the

drawings of patients in mental institutions are placed on the same plane as the works of Leonardo

and Rafael, and Athens and Florence are compared unfavorably to hunting and gathering societies

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 45

where cannibalism and infanticide proliferate. Postmodernism is the creed of the morally insane. A

thoroughgoing postmodernist (or “postie”) must axiomatically reject any notion of objective reality;

postmodernism when challenged beats a hasty retreat into a dream world of myth, metaphor, and

archetype. Postmodernism gets its philosophical underpinnings most of all from Nietzsche and the

other exponents of what the academics like to call “Continental philosophy,” so as to avoid talking

about the strong fascist overtones of many of these thinkers. The latent fascist potentialities of

present day academic postmodernism are immense, and have only been waiting behind masks of

cynicism and apathy for the appearance of an appropriate demagogue to mobilize them into the

obvious forms of frenetic sociopathic activism.

FRANK WARNS OBAMA HE IS ABOUT TO BE RECRUITED

Before leaving for Occidental College, Obama visits Frank one last time to get his advice,

somewhat on the model of Laertes going to Polonius in Hamlet. Frank tells Obama that college

represents “an advanced degree in compromise.” Frank explains that Obama has to understand the

“real price of admission.” The real price is “leaving your race at the door. Leaving your people

behind. Understand something, boy. You’re not going to college to get educated. You’re going

there to get trained. They’ll train you to want what you don’t need. They’ll train you to manipulate

words so they don’t mean anything anymore. They’ll train you to forget what it is that you already

know. They’ll train you so good, you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity

and the American way and all that s**t. They’ll give you a corner office and invite you to fancy

dinners, and tell you you’re a credit to your race. Until you want to actually start running things and

then they’ll yank on your chain and let you know that you may be a well-trained, well paid n****r,

but you’re a n****r just the same.” (Dreams 97)

This is one of the most illuminating passages in Obama’s personal memoir. He is in effect

confessing to the reader what is about to happen to him at Occidental College and above all with his

encounter with Zbigniew Brzezinski at Columbia University: to become a wholly-owned asset and

career sponsored by the networks of the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberger group, and the

Council on Foreign Relations. Obama describes a process of training and indoctrination so

thorough that it needs to be described as brainwashing. The personal identity of the individual is

largely erased, resulting in a kind of automaton or zombie. Obama has now passed beyond the

stage of brainwashing into the phase of spouting slogans to get ahead. He knows that what awaits

him is a phase of nominal authority masking the reality of his role of abject puppet and stooge of his

masters. This chapter might be subtitled “The Confessions of St. Barack,” since he gives us a

thumbnail sketch of his life, past, present, and future. This extraordinary revelation of the real

nature and basis of Obama’s career is of course a potential source of immense embarrassment, so it

must have taken a compulsive urge to impel Obama to include it in the published text. This

elementary lack of prudence illustrates another aspect of Obama’s existentialism and fatalism:

powerful, sincere emotions acquire for the existentialist a validity and justification which cannot be

questioned, no matter how irrational and sociopathic those sincere emotions may be.

OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE: BONG HITS FOR FANON

Obama has conceded that he had made “some bad decisions” as a teenager involving drugs and

drinking; this admission was made in a talk to high school students in New Hampshire in November

2007. The adulatory Vanity Fair profile attempts to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear by

congratulating Obama on his frankness in admitting his systematic drug use. Here we read: “Mr.

46 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Obama’s admissions are rare for a politician (his book, Dreams from My Father, was written before

he ran for office.) They briefly became a campaign issue in December when an adviser to Senator

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama’s chief Democratic rival, suggested that his history with drugs

would make him vulnerable to Republican attacks if he became his party’s nominee. Mr. Obama, of

Illinois, has never quantified his illicit drug use or provided many details. He wrote about his two

years at Occidental, a predominantly white liberal arts college, as a gradual but profound awakening

from a slumber of indifference that gave rise to his activism there and his fears that drugs could lead

him to addiction or apathy, as they had for many other black men.” It was doubtful that the GOP’s

Karl Rove attack machine would be so charitable with Obama.

Occidental black students self-segregated themselves; Obama writes that they were “like a

tribe.” (Dreams 98) They attempted to enforce conformity on students they considered non-white.

Obama recounts the story of Joyce, a smart young multiracial woman. Joyce complains that it is

black people who always have to make everything racial. They’re the ones making me choose.

They’re the ones who are telling me that I can’t be who I am.” (Dreams 99) Obama comments that

“Only white culture had individuals.” (Dreams 100) His obsession with race and identity remains

constant throughout.

OBAMA’S “I DIDN’T INJECT’ MOMENT

At Occidental College near Los Angeles, Obama began to experiment intensively with illegal

narcotics. He claims that he dabbled with marijuana and cocaine, but stopped short of shooting up

heroin. Obama himself writes: “I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped,

and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though – Mickey, my potential

initiator, had been just a little too eager for me to go through with that.” (Dreams 93) Obama says

he was confronted with “the needle and the tubing” and then got cold feet (while standing in a meat

freezer in a deli) and backed out. He had been on his way to the life of an addict, like his friend

Ray: “Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be

black man.” (Dreams 93) So Obama was on the verge of heroin but did not inject, a familiar refrain.

As a freshman at Occidental, Obama had an international circle of friends — “a real eclectic sort

of group,” recalled Vinai Thummalapally from Hyderabad, India. Obama became especially

friendly with Mohammed Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, two wealthy Pakistanis.

Thummalapally also recalls a French student, plus black and white Americans. One of these was

Jon K. Mitchell, who later played bass for country-swing band Asleep at the Wheel. Mitchell says

he remembers that Obama wore puka shell necklaces all the time, even though they were not in

style, and that “we let it slide because he spent a lot of time growing up in Hawaii.”) (Adam

Goldman and Robert Tanner, “Old friends recall Obama’s years in LA, NY,” AP via Newsday, May

15, 2008) Later, these friendships would make it possible for Obama to visit Pakistan in 1981. At

that time Obama traveled to Pakistan and spent “about three weeks” with Hamid, and staying in

Karachi with Chandoo’s family, said Bill Burton, Obama’s press secretary. “He was clearly

shocked by the economic disparity he saw in Pakistan. He couldn’t get over the sight of rural

peasants bowing to the wealthy landowners they worked for as they passed,” commented Margot

Mifflin, who has a bit part in Obama’s memoir. Obama often claims that the fact he has traveled

abroad makes him better able to understand international relations; his trip to Pakistan appears to

have prepared him above all to make his outrageous demand for the unilateral US bombing of

Pakistan, with all the inevitable slaughter, in search of “al Qaeda.” There is also some suggestion

that Obama may have been visiting gay friends on this trip.

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 47

Obama tells us that it was at Occidental College that he came under the influence of Frantz

Fanon. Obama writes: “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The

more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors

and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather

jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Frantz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and

patriarchy.” (Dreams 100) Here is the aspiring president wandering through the post-modernist

proto-fascist rubble field. He is overwhelmingly other-directed, obsessed with his image in the eyes

of others. The name that stands out is that of Frantz Fanon, probably the biggest intellectual

influence on the young Obama.

BEFORE POL POT AND KHOMEINI, THERE WAS FANON

Fanon (1925-1961) was a French-speaking psychiatrist born on the island of Martinique in the

Caribbean. Like Rousseau before him, Fanon was promoted and made famous by Venetian cultural

operatives, notably by Umberto Campagnolo of the enormously influential Société Européenne de

Culture, one of the most important international think tanks of the time between 1945 and 1975. It

was the Venetian foundation operative Campagnolo who first brought Fanon to Europe and made

him a celebrity. The preface to the first edition of Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth in Paris in 1961

was written by the French existentialist pope, Jean-Paul Sartre. Fanon attempted to identify himself

with the merging anti-colonial revolutions of the third world and joined the Algerian FLN, but he

always remained a European existentialist decadent in methodological terms, and not a denizen of a

third world rice paddy or favela. Fanon, a disciple of Merleau-Ponty, was always a hater of science,

technology, and human progress, since he always thought of technology as something imposed by

the European colonial masters which had to be rejected as part of liberation from the colonial yoke.

This made Fanon a direct precursor of the New Dark Ages faction which emerged during the 1970s

in the form of such figures as Pol Pot of Cambodia, the “Islamo-marxists” Ali Shariati and Bani-

Sadr of Iran, and other declared enemies of western civilization. The problem was the aspirations of

the third world peoples to a better life could never be fulfilled without the large scale realization of

science and technology. Fanon was accordingly a thinker who appealed to degenerate third world

oligarchies, anxious to get independence but equally determined to prevent the masses from gaining

upward mobility through the social effects of industrialization, which this school tried to define as

ethnocide because it wiped out the backward and primitive dead-end cultures festering in the

backwaters of the planet.

The other leading idea of Fanon was the necessity of violence, which he exalted in direct

contradiction to Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Fanon was evidently under the spell of Georges

Sorel, the theoretician of purgative violence who was so important for the young Mussolini. The

combination of anti-science demagogy couched in hyper-revolutionary third world terms, plus a

demand for violence which easily shaded over into terrorism, made Fanon’s writings a key tool for

the left wings of US, British and French intelligence during the phase of decolonization in the 1960s

and 1970s. Fanon was also important for the European terrorists of the Italian Red Brigades and the

German Baader-Meinhof group. Fanon, much more than Marx, must be seen as one of the

permanent keys to Obama’s thinking. Obama turns out to be an ultra-left existentialist, with

Fanonist-Sorelian fascist overtones.

Fanon expresses the utopian desire to eliminate all the problems inherited from European

colonialism by bringing an entirely new world, a utopia, into being. As so often happens, the chosen

tool to abolish the historical past is “absolute violence.” (Fanon citations are from The Wretched of

the Earth, chapter VI, conclusion, transl. Dominic Tweedie) Violence purifies, and it is only

48 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

through violence that the dichotomy of white and black can be transcended. “Violence,” says

Fanon, “is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair

and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.” Fanon also posed as an ideologue

of world revolution, opining: “In guerrilla war the struggle no longer concerns the place where you

are, but the places where you are going. Each fighter carries his warring country between his toes.”

And again: “The national bourgeoisie will be greatly helped on its way toward decadence by the

Western bourgeoisies, who come to it as tourists avid for the exotic, for big game hunting, and for

casinos. The national bourgeoisie organizes centers of rest and relaxation and pleasure resorts to

meet the wishes of the Western bourgeoisie. Such activity is given the name of tourism, and for the

occasion will be built up as a national industry.”

At the center of the belief structure of the mature Fanon is the total rejection of European

civilization on racial grounds: “We must leave our dreams and abandon our old beliefs and

friendships of the time before life began. Let us waste no time in sterile litanies and nauseating

mimicry. Leave this Europe where they are never done talking of Man, yet murder men everywhere

they find them, at the corner of every one of their own streets, in all the corners of the globe. For

centuries they have stifled almost the whole of humanity in the name of a so-called spiritual

experience. Look at them today swaying between atomic and spiritual disintegration. And yet it

may be said that Europe has been successful in as much as everything that she has attempted has

succeeded. Europe undertook the leadership of the world with ardour, cynicism and violence. Look

at how the shadow of her palaces stretches out ever farther! Every one of her movements has burst

the bounds of space and thought. Europe has declined all humility and all modesty; but she has also

set her face against all solicitude and all tenderness. She has only shown herself parsimonious and

niggardly where men are concerned; it is only men that she has killed and devoured. So, my

brothers, how is it that we do not understand that we have better things to do than to follow that

same Europe? Come, then, comrades, the European game has finally ended; we must find

something different. We today can do everything, so long as we do not imitate Europe, so long as

we are not obsessed by the desire to catch up with Europe. Let us decide not to imitate Europe; let

us combine our muscles and our brains in a new direction. Let us try to create the whole man, whom

Europe has been incapable of bringing to triumphant birth.”

FANON: THE UNITED STATES IS A MONSTER

In Fanon’s world picture, the only thing worse than Europe is the United States. Fanon’s

condemnation of the United States should be carefully read, since it is here that we find the roots of

Obama’s hatred of the country he chose to be his own: “Two centuries ago, a former European

colony decided to catch up with Europe. It succeeded so well that the United States of America

became a monster, in which the taints, the sickness and the inhumanity of Europe have grown to

appalling dimensions. Comrades, have we not other work to do than to create a third Europe? The

West saw itself as a spiritual adventure. It is in the name of the spirit, in the name of the spirit of

Europe, that Europe has made her encroachments, that she has justified her crimes and legitimized

the slavery in which she holds four-fifths of humanity.”

Fanon also makes clear that European workers have become integrated into European capitalist

society; contrary to Marxist theory, they have sold out. Nothing positive can be expected from these

workers, since they are just as corrupt as the other Europeans. Fanon thinks that race is everything,

that class is nothing, and that race war, the more violent the better, will be the answer. Here we see

the germ of the anti-working class hatred which was common to Fanon, to the Ayers-Dohrn

Weatherman terrorist faction of SDS, and which lives on in the statements of the Obama campaign

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 49

today: “Yes, the European spirit has strange roots. All European thought has unfolded in places

which were increasingly more deserted and more encircled by precipices; and thus it was that the

custom grew up in those places of very seldom meeting man. A permanent dialogue with oneself

and an increasingly obscene narcissism never ceased to prepare the way for a half delirious state,

where intellectual work became suffering and the reality was not at all that of a living man, working

and creating himself, but rather words, different combinations of words, and the tensions springing

from the meanings contained in words. Yet some Europeans were found to urge the European

workers to shatter this narcissism and to break with this un-reality. But in general the workers of

Europe have not replied to these calls; for the workers believe, too, that they are part of the

prodigious adventure of the European spirit.” Working class voters are right to identify in Obama a

class enemy, since that is exactly what he is.

The utopian theme of the New Man, the radical reform of human nature itself, and the

overcoming of alienation are all utopian themes which play a central role in fascist movements, as

we will show in more detail in the final chapter of this book. Fanon argues strongly for a utopian

approach of this type, which depends on rejecting western civilization: “The Third World today

faces Europe like a colossal mass whose aim should be to try to resolve the problems to which

Europe has not been able to find the answers. If we wish to live up to our peoples’ expectations, we

must seek the response elsewhere than in Europe. Moreover, if we wish to reply to the expectations

of the people of Europe, it is no good sending them back a reflection, even an ideal reflection, of

their society and their thought with which from time to time they feel immeasurably sickened. For

Europe, for ourselves and for humanity, comrades, we must turn over a new leaf, we must work out

new concepts, and try to set afoot a new man.”12

Just to make sure that the point about violence was thoroughly understood by Fanon’s gullible

young readers, the premier French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre in 1961 contributed the following

preface to the edition of Fanon which Obama is likely to have read: “… read Fanon; for he shows

clearly that this irrepressible violence is neither sound and fury, nor the resurrection of savage

instincts, nor even the effect of resentment: it is man re-creating himself. I think we understood this

truth at one time, but we have forgotten it — that no gentleness can efface the marks of violence;

only violence itself can destroy them. The native cures himself of colonial neurosis by thrusting out

the settler through force of arms. When his rage boils over, he rediscovers his lost innocence and he

comes to know himself in that he himself creates his self. Far removed from his war, we consider it

as a triumph of barbarism; but of its own volition it achieves, slowly but surely, the emancipation of

the rebel, for bit by bit it destroys in him and around him the colonial gloom. Once begun, it is a

war that gives no quarter. You may fear or be feared; that is to say, abandon yourself to the

disassociations of a sham existence or conquer your birthright of unity. When the peasant takes a

gun in his hands, the old myths grow dim and the prohibitions are one by one forgotten. The rebel’s

weapon is the proof of his humanity. For in the first days of the revolt you must kill: to shoot down

a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at

the same time: there remain a dead man, and a free man; the survivor, for the first time, feels a

national soil under his foot.” The decadent French intellectual embraces Fanon most of all because

of his call for violence, thus unerringly singling out the sickest part of Fanon’s work.

OBAMA’S NICOTINE ADDICTION BEGINS

Obama apparently started smoking when he was at Occidental College. In his fawning cult

biography of Obama, author David Mendell writes about Obama’s life as a “secret smoker” and

how he “went to great lengths to conceal the habit.” Jeff Stier has analyzed the degree to which

50 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Obama’s quarter century of smoking may have impacted his health: the conclusion is that Obama

may well have more health problems than John McCain. Stier writes: “So how long and how much

did Sen. Obama smoke? The information has not been officially released, and the campaign has not

returned calls or emails posing this question. But he smoked a lot over his life. He admits to having

smoked up to ten cigarettes a day, but usually closer to five or six. Most people underestimate how

much they smoke, but let’s take him at his word. Let’s also assume he really did quit when he said

he did, in February 2007 (although he admits to having fallen off the wagon). That’s about twentysix

years, given that we know he was smoking by the time he was a freshman at Occidental College.

That’s more than 55,000 — maybe 70,000 cigarettes! Has this aspect of Sen. Obama’s ability to

serve really been explored? Just because he’s young, looks great, and exercises doesn’t mean he’s

healthy. Recall Jim Fixx. An overweight smoker when he turned his life around at thirty-five, Fixx

became the icon of fitness. He quit smoking and started running. Then he died in 1984 at age fiftythree

— while running. Sen. Obama, while not overweight, smoked a lot longer than Jim Fixx did.

And while the stresses of running may have contributed to Fixx’s death, it was his years of

smoking, not his running, that caused the plaque to build up in his arteries. Doctors say the stress of

being president may in fact exceed the stress of running. And it’s an unhealthier kind of stress. The

public deserves to know how long and how much Sen. Obama really smoked. Does he have other

risk factors for heart disease? Compared to whites, for instance, African-Americans are more likely

to die of a stroke, according to the American Heart Association. This, in fact, is probably the only

time race is a legitimate question to raise this campaign season — and just one of several health

question on voters’ minds.” (Jeff Stier, Obama’s Health, April 19, 2008) McCain, we see, may be

in better health than Obama, despite appearances.

Smoking is subject to an ineffable taboo in the rich elitist, affluent suburbanite, academic, and

global warming circles which provide Obama’s base of support, so he has striven to hide his

horrible dirty vice from public view. Pictures showing Obama smoking have been greeted with

unalloyed horror by Obama’s backers. However, the candidate has confessed that he has gone back

to puffing his coffin nails as a result of the stress of the campaign trail. One reporter who penetrated

Obama’s terrible secret, despite his evasive action, was the perceptive Jake Tapper, who exposed

the issue in April 2008: ‘As any close friend or family member can attest, I have an unusually keen

sense of smell and immediately I smelled cigarette smoke on Obama. Frankly, he reeked of

cigarettes. Obama ran off before I could ask him if he’d just snuck a smoke, so I called his

campaign. They denied it. He’d quit months before, in February [2007], they insisted. He chewed

nicorette. But I knew what I’d smelled and I asked his campaign to double-check and to ask him if

he’d had a cigarette. They reported back that he had told them he hadn’t had a cigarette since he

quit. And maybe that was true. Maybe I imagined the cigarette smoke. My olfactory nerve

somehow misfired. Except….last night on MSNBC’s Hardball, Obama admitted that his attempt to

wean himself from the vile tobacco weed had not been entirely successful. “I fell off the wagon a

couple times during the course of it, and then was able to get back on,” he said. “But it is a struggle

like everything else.”’ (Jake Tapper, “Obama is Smokin’,” abcnews.com, April 3, 2008) Because of

the importance of the presidency, it is imperative that all candidates release their medical records,

including the results of any mental health treatments and of any and all HIV testing.

THE LOST YEARS AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY:

OBAMA’S WALL OF SECRECY

Obama’s years at Columbia University between 1981 and 1983 constitute the greatest single

mystery of his life. From the point of view of all available biographical material published and in

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 51

the public domain, these are quite simply Obama’s lost years. Dreams from My Father, as we have

seen, is a book prodigal with details about Obama’s drug use — a question that may have a serious

potential to damage his political career. By contrast Obama’s attendance at Columbia University, a

member of the prestigious Ivy League, ought to be a selling point and indeed a point of honor for

our candidate. Instead, any attempts to establish the relevant facts about Obama’s years at Columbia

runs up against a brick wall of silence, evasion, and prevarication. The result is a gaping hole in

Obama’s autobiographical narrative, a serious lacuna precisely where this inveterate showboater

would normally be showcasing his academic achievements. It is in part one, chapter 6 of Dreams

that Obama covers up these years at Columbia. There is almost nothing about his activity as a

student, or about his mental life. The Associated Press ran up against the same wall: “The Obama

campaign declined to discuss Obama’s time at Columbia and his friendships in general. It won’t, for

example, release his transcript or name his friends. It did, however, list five locations where Obama

lived during his four years here: three on Manhattan’s Upper West Side and two in Brooklyn — one

in Park Slope, the other in Brooklyn Heights. His memoir mentions two others on Manhattan’s

Upper East Side.” (Adam Goldman and Robert Tanner, “Old friends recall Obama’s years in LA,

NY,” AP via Newsday, May 15, 2008)

The biographical surveys of Obama published by the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune

are equally incapable of providing any details about Obama’s time on the Columbia campus. As

Janny Scott of the New York Times reported, ‘Senator Obama, an Illinois Democrat now seeking

the presidency, suggests in his book that his years in New York were a pivotal period: He ran three

miles a day, buckled down to work and “stopped getting high,” which he says he had started doing

in high school. Yet he declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his

Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from

those years. “He doesn’t remember the names of a lot of people in his life,” said Ben LaBolt, a

campaign spokesman. Mr. Obama has, of course, done plenty of remembering. His 1995 memoir,

Dreams from My Father, weighs in at more than 450 pages. But he also exercised his writer’s

prerogative to decide what to include or leave out. Now, as he presents himself to voters, a look at

his years in New York — other people’s accounts and his own — suggests not only what he was

like back then but how he chooses to be seen now.’ Why so secretive when he could be

showboating, according to his preferred custom? Or, are we dealing with some form of mental

impairment?

In an article by the insufferable British snob and Obama partisan Richard Wolffe (know to the

few viewers of the Olberman propaganda show, Newsweek magazine attempted to convinced its

readers that Obama is some kind of Christian. This required grotesque contortions, which need not

concern us here. Wolffe reflects the same cone of silence encountered by other researchers into

Obama’s lost years at Columbia, about which he reports virtually no facts and few lies: Obama,

alleges Wolffe, ‘enrolled at Columbia in part to get far away from his past; he'd gone to high school

in Hawaii and had just spent two years "enjoying myself," as he puts it, at Occidental College in

Los Angeles. In New York City, "I lived an ascetic existence," Obama told Newsweek in an

interview on his campaign plane last week. "I did a lot of spiritual exploration. I withdrew from the

world in a fairly deliberate way." He fasted. Often, he'd go days without speaking to another person.

For company, he had books. There was Saint Augustine, the fourth-century North African bishop

who wrote the West's first spiritual memoir and built the theological foundations of the Christian

Church. There was Friedrich Nietzsche, the 19th-century German philosopher and father of

existentialism. There was Graham Greene, the Roman Catholic Englishman whose short novels are

full of compromise, ambivalence and pain. Obama meditated on these men and argued with them in

52 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

his mind.’ Notice that the racist-terrorist-Luddite Fanon, the writer who influenced Obama the most,

has disappeared. He is now replaced by Nietzsche, the classic protofascist philodoxer of the

nineteenth century. The top Nazi ideologue, Alfred Rosenberg rightly claimed Nietzsche along with

Richard Wagner, the antisemite Lagarde and the racist Houston Stewart Chamberlain as a precursor

of the Nazi movement. As we argue elsewhere, it is most likely through existentialism, of which

Nietzsche was a precursor, that Obama developed as a social fascist. (“Finding His Faith,”

Newsweek, July 12, 2008, http://www.newsweek.com/id/145971)

Obama’s acolytes at the reactionary Chicago Tribune found even less about Obama’s Columbia

years than the swooning liberals at the New York Times.

Obama spent just two years at Occidental. He said in a recent interview that he had begun to

weary of the parties and fretted about a lackadaisical approach to his studies. He grew more

introspective and serious. His mother’s warnings were beginning to take hold. Seeking a fresh

start, he transferred to Columbia University in New York City. Classmates and teachers from

those days remember him as studious and serious, someone who hit the library in his off hours

instead of the bars. “If I had to give one adjective to describe him, it is mature,” said William

Araiza, who took an international politics class with Obama. “He was our age, but seemed older

because of his poise.” (Maurice Possley, “Activism Blossomed in College,” Chicago Tribune,

March 30, 2007)

That’s it. Nothing more. No Dink Stover at Yale, no This Side of Paradise. Before you know it,

Obama has left Columbia and is out in the big world: “After his graduation from Columbia

University in 1983, he worked briefly for a New York financial consultant and then a consumer

organization.” Bob Secter and John McCormick, “Portrait of a Pragmatist,” Chicago Tribune,

March 30, 2007) Some postings on the Internet have alleged that Obama is seeking to hide a phase

of flamboyant homosexuality during his years at Morningside Heights. This may be so. However,

the principal thesis argued here, based on very strong circumstantial evidence, is that Obama is

seeking to conceal the central event of his entire personal story: his recruitment by Zbigniew

Brzezinski as a long-term controlled political asset and sponsored career of the Rockefellercontrolled

Trilateral Commission.

OBAMA AND ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI AT COLUMBIA, 1981-1983

Brzezinski during these years was fresh from having directed the National Security Council

during Jimmy Carter’s sole term in office. As we have seen elsewhere in this book, it was in

precisely this period of the early 1980s that Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington, and other long-term

Trilateral planners were reflecting on the results of the Carter regime, while looking forward to

wrecking and frustrating a general political upsurge in the United States (known in Huntington’s

parlance as a creedal passion period) which they could already see on the horizon, and which they

located at that time in the years between 2010 and 2030. It is safe to assume that Brzezinski and

Huntington were also concerned with recruiting young political talent which they could develop,

groom, indoctrinate, and brainwash for various purposes, including that of political candidate, over

the coming decades. Brzezinski and Huntington, in short, were looking for political assets which

they might employ during a quarter century perspective which was the framework for their future

activity. Because of the strong Ford Foundation pedigree of Obama’s mother, young Barack would

have been an obvious choice as a subject to be interviewed and vetted. The contention here is that

Obama was recruited in the context of this effort, and that since then, his career has been fostered

and sponsored by the circles of the Trilateral Commission.

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 53

Zbigniew Brzezinski during these years was working as the boss of the Institute for Communist

Affairs at Columbia — a notorious anti-Soviet think tank and propaganda center. What little we

know about Obama includes that he was a politics major with a specialty in international relations

who wrote his senior thesis on the topic of Soviet nuclear disarmament. This, needless to say, is a

topic which has Zbigniew Brzezinski written all over it. If Senator Obama wishes to refute the

contention that he has been a member of the Brzezinski Trilateral stable of politicians and other

operatives since approximately 1981-1983, he is invited to offer documentation to that end. For his

part, Zbigniew Brzezinski understood quite soon in his career that his Dr. Strangelove television

persona was a decided political liability in this country. It has been forgotten today, but at the time

he left office at the end of the Carter administration, Brzezinski was by all odds the most hated

member of a very unpopular administration. In fact, it would seem that Brzezinski ranks down to

this day as the most hated government official serving in Democratic administrations since the

departure from the White House of Lyndon B. Johnson in January 1969. Any doubts about this

profound unpopularity had been clarified when Brzezinski was loudly booed by the delegates to the

1980 Democratic National Convention. Since those times, Brzezinski has been extraordinarily gun

shy when it comes to publicity or to stating in public what he actually thinks and intends.

Brzezinski, in other words, has learned that he must conceal his own political operations, lest they

be disrupted by hostile scrutiny. Obama has represented one of these long-term, concealed

Brzezinski operations.

Obama’s presence at Columbia remains shrouded in mystery. According to published reports,

many of his classmates don’t remember Obama. According to one account, he does not appear in

the yearbook of his graduating class. In response to inquiries made by journalists during 2007,

Columbia University was unwilling or unable to find a picture of him during his years at that

university. Obama has attempted to conceal his years at Columbia with the usual cloak of

complaints about the alleged racism of the place: ‘Mr Obama was later admitted to read politics and

international relations at New York’s prestigious Columbia University where, his book claims, “no

matter how many times the administration tried to paint them over, the walls remained scratched

with blunt correspondence (about) n****rs.” But one of his classmates, Joe Zwicker, 45, now a

lawyer in Boston, said yesterday: “That surprises me. Columbia was a pretty tolerant place. There

were African-American students in my classes and I never saw any evidence of racism at all.”’

(London Daily Mail, January 27, 2007) Nevertheless, Obama does reveal in veiled terms that

coming to Columbia was a great watershed in his life: ‘“There was a fundamental rupture in my life

between Occidental and Columbia, where I just became more serious,” Obama said.’ (Purdum,

Vanity Fair, March 2008) It was Brzezinski’s intervention that made the difference, we believe.

And: is Obama suggesting that this was when he turned away from illegal drugs? He never says so

specifically, leaving a plethora of questions.

In a September 5, 2008 interview with Matt Welch, the Libertarian Party candidate for vice

president Wayne Allyn Root, a member of Obama’s Columbia class of 1983, reports that he never

met or heard of anybody called Obama, and has not been able to find anyone who can among his

fellow alumni. Root majored in the same department where Obama claims to have majored. Here is

an excerpt from this revealing exchange:

“Wayne Allyn Root: I think the most dangerous thing you should know about Barack Obama is

I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knows him, and they all know me. I don’t have a

classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever!

Matt Welch: So tell us what we should know about Barack

54 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Welch: Yeah, but you were like selling, you know, Amway in college or something, weren’t

you?

Root: Is that what you think of me! And the best damned Amway salesman ever!

Welch: No, I’m sure that you were an outgoing young man, I’m just guessing.

Root: I am! That’s my point. Where was Obama? He wasn’t an outgoing young man, no one

ever heard of him.

Tim Cavanaugh: Maybe he was a late bloomer.

Root: Maybe. Or maybe he was involved in some sort of black radical politics.

Welch: Ooooooooooh.

Root: Maybe he was too busy smoking pot in his dorm room to ever show up for class. I don’t

know what he was doing!

Welch: Wait, you weren’t smoking pot in your dorm room?

Root: No, I wasn’t. I wasn’t. But I don’t hold that against anybody, but I wasn’t.... Nobody

recalls him. I’m not exaggerating, I’m not kidding.

Welch: Were you the exact same class?

Root: Class of ‘83 political science, pre-law Columbia University. You don’t get more exact

than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion,

our 20th reunion five years ago, 20th reunion, who was asked to be the speaker of the class?

Me. No one ever heard of Barack! Who was he, and five years ago, nobody even knew who he

was.

Other guy: Did he even show up to the reunion?

Root: I don’t know! I didn’t know him. I don’t think anybody knew him. But I know that the

guy who writes the class notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, the macha who

knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him. Is that not strange? It’s

very strange.

Welch: That’s peculiar! Do you have any theories?”13

In spite of his intent to deceive and dissemble, Obama has lavished praise on Zbigniew, as for

example in his first foreign policy speech in Iowa in 2007, when he called in Zbiggy to introduce

him. On this occasion, Obama paid homage to the Polish revanchist in effusive terms: “Brzezinski

is someone I have learned an immense amount from,” and “one of our most outstanding scholars

and thinkers.” The New York Times account of this critical and decisive phase in Obama’s life

stresses the obsessive secrecy with which the Obamakins attempt to shroud this entire phase.

Barack Obama does not say much about his years in New York City. The time he spent as an

undergraduate at Columbia College and then working in Manhattan in the early 1980s surfaces

only fleetingly in his memoir. In the book, he casts himself as a solitary wanderer in the

metropolis, the outsider searching for a way to “make myself of some use.” He tells of

underheated sublets, a night spent in an alley, a dead neighbor on the landing. From their fire

escape, he and an unnamed roommate watch “white people from the better neighborhoods”

bring their dogs to defecate on the block. He takes a job in an unidentified “consulting house to

multinational corporations,” where he is “a spy behind enemy lines,” startled to find himself

with a secretary, a suit and money in the bank.

He barely mentions Columbia, training ground for the elite, where he transferred in his junior

year, majoring in political science and international relations and writing his thesis on Soviet

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 55

nuclear disarmament. He dismisses in one sentence his first community organizing job — work

he went on to do in Chicago — though a former supervisor remembers him as “a star

performer.” […] In a long profile of Mr. Obama in a Columbia alumni magazine in 2005, in

which his Columbia years occupied just two paragraphs, he called that time “an intense period

of study.” “I spent a lot of time in the library. I didn’t socialize that much. I was like a monk,”

he was quoted as saying. He said he was somewhat involved with the Black Student

Organization and anti-apartheid activities, although in recent interviews, several prominent

student leaders said they did not remember his playing a role. (Janny Scott, “Obama’s Account

of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say,” New York Times, October 30, 2007)

One person who did remember Mr. Obama was Michael L. Baron, who taught a senior seminar

on international politics and American policy. Mr. Baron, now president of an electronics

company in Florida, said he was Mr. Obama’s adviser on the senior thesis for that course. Mr.

Baron, who later wrote Mr. Obama a recommendation for Harvard Law School, gave him an A

in the course. Columbia was a hotbed for discussion of foreign policy, Mr. Baron said. The

faculty included Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser, and Zalmay

Khalilzad, now the American ambassador to the United Nations. Half of the eight students in

the seminar were outstanding, and Mr. Obama was among them, Mr. Baron said.

One of Obama’s friends at Columbia was his roommate Sadik or Siddiqi, who is described as “a

short, well-built Pakistani” who smoked marijuana, snorted cocaine and liked to party. Obama’s

campaign adamantly refused to identify “Sadik,” but the Associated Press located him in Seattle,

where he raises money for a community theater. When Obama arrived in New York, he already

knew Siddiqi — a friend of Chandoo’s and Hamid’s from Karachi who had visited Los Angeles.

Looking back, Siddiqi acknowledges that he and Obama were an odd couple. Siddiqi would mock

Obama’s idealism — he just wanted to make a lot of money and buy things, while Obama wanted to

help the poor. “At that age, I thought he was a saint and a square, and he took himself too

seriously,” Siddiqi said. “I would ask him why he was so serious. He was genuinely concerned with

the plight of the poor. He’d give me lectures, which I found very boring. He must have found me

very irritating.” Siddiqi offered the most expansive account of Obama as a young man. “We were

both very lost. We were both alienated, although he might not put it that way. He arrived disheveled

and without a place to stay,” said Siddiqi, who at the time worked as a waiter and as a salesman at a

boutique…. The apartment was “a slum of a place” in a drug-ridden neighborhood filled with

gunshots, he said. “It wasn’t a comfortable existence. We were slumming it.” What little furniture

they had was found on the street, and guests would have to hold their dinner plates in their laps. …’

Obama commented: ‘“For about two years there, I was just painfully alone and really not

focused on anything, except maybe thinking a lot.” In his memoir, Obama recalls fasting on

Sunday; Siddiqi says Obama was a follower of comedian-activist Dick Gregory’s vegetarian diet. “I

think self-deprivation was his schtick, denying himself pleasure, good food and all of that.” But it

wasn’t exactly an ascetic life. There was plenty of time for reading (Gabriel Garcia Marquez, V.S.

Naipaul) and listening to music (Van Morrison, the Ohio Players, Bob Dylan). The two, along with

others, went out for nights on the town. “He wasn’t entirely a hermit,” Siddiqi said. Siddiqi said his

female friends thought Obama was “a hunk.” “We were always competing,” he said. “You know

how it is. You go to a bar and you try hitting on the girls. He had a lot more success. I wouldn’t outcompete

him in picking up girls, that’s for sure.” Obama was a tolerant roommate. Siddiqi’s mother,

who had never been around a black man, came to visit and she was rude; Obama was nothing but

polite. Siddiqi himself could be intemperate — he called Obama an Uncle Tom, but “he was really

patient. I’m surprised he suffered me.” Finally, their relationship started to fray. “I was partying all

56 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

the time. I was disrupting his studies,” Siddiqi said. Obama moved out.’ (Adam Goldman and

Robert Tanner, “Old friends recall Obama’s years in LA, NY,” AP via Newsday, May 15, 2008)

TRILATERAL COMMISSION POST-CARTER PERSPECTIVE, 1981-1983

During these years, Trilateral leaders Brzezinski and Samuel Huntington were pondering the

future transformation of the United States into a bureaucratic-authoritarian or totalitarian state. In

his book American Politics, Huntington developed a perspective for the future based on conflict

between increasingly authoritarian and ultimately totalitarian state control, on the one hand, and an

underlying American value system and world-outlook – which he calls the “American Creed” – on

the other. In Huntington’s view, there was no doubt that the regime would become more oppressive:

“An increasingly sophisticated economy and active involvement in world affairs seem likely to

create stronger needs for hierarchy, bureaucracy, centralization of power, expertise, big government

specifically, and big organizations generally.” (p. 228) This is a kind of shorthand for what most

experts could identify as the fascist corporate state.

The problem Huntington saw was the American Creed, based on liberty, equality, individualism,

and democracy and rooted in “seventeenth-century Protestant moralism and eighteenth-century

liberal rationalism.” (p. 229) Huntington predicted in 1981 that the conflict between individualistic

values and the centralized regime may explode early in the coming century, specifically between

2010 and 2030, in a period of ferment and dislocation like the late 1960s: “If the periodicity of the

past prevails, a major sustained creedal passion period will occur in the second and third decades of

the twenty-first century.” At this time, he argued, “the oscillations among the responses could

intensify in such a way as to threaten to destroy both ideals and institutions.” (p. 232) Such a

process would be acted out as follows:

“Lacking any concept of the state, lacking for most of its history both the centralized authority

and the bureaucratic apparatus of the European state, the American polity has historically been

a weak polity. It was designed to be so, and the traditional inheritance and social environment

combined for years to support the framers’ intentions. In the twentieth century, foreign threats

and domestic economic and social needs have generated pressures to develop stronger, more

authoritative decision-making and decision-implementing institutions. Yet the continued

presence of deeply felt moralistic sentiments among major groups in American society could

continue to ensure weak and divided government, devoid of authority and unable to deal

satisfactorily with the economic, social and foreign challenges confronting the nation.

Intensification of this conflict between history and progress could give rise to increasing

frustration and increasingly violent oscillations between moralism and cynicism. American

moralism ensures that government will never be truly efficacious; the realities of power ensure

that government will never be truly democratic. This situation could lead to a two-phase

dialectic involving intensified efforts to reform government, followed by intensified frustration

when those efforts produce not progress in a liberal-democratic direction, but obstacles to

meeting perceived functional needs. The weakening of government in an effort to reform it

could lead eventually to strong demands for the replacement of the weakened and ineffective

institutions by more authoritarian structures more effectively designed to meet historical needs.

Given the perversity of reform, moralistic extremism in the pursuit of liberal democracy could

generate a strong tide toward authoritarian efficiency.” (p. 232)

Huntington then quotes Plato’s celebrated passage on the way that the “culmination of liberty in

democracy is precisely what prepares the way for the cruelest extreme of servitude under a despot.”

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 57

The message is clear: sooner or later, all roads lead to Behemoth. (Tarpley, Project Democracy,

[Washington: EIR, 1987])

Trilateral fascination with a totalitarian transformation in this country did not start after Carter,

but began well before he came on the scene. A good example is Brzezinski’s own book, Between

Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (1970), where the Polish revanchist conjured up

the glittering image of a “technetronic era,” whereby a more controlled society would gradually

emerge, dominated by an oligarchical elite unrestrained by traditional values.

Brzezinski predicted that “Power will gravitate into the hands of those who control information”

(Brzezinski 1), adding that surveillance and data mining will foster “tendencies through the next

several decades toward a technocratic era, a dictatorship leaving even less room for political

procedures as we know them” (Brzezinski 12). Information Technology would become the key to

mass social control: “Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not

hesitate to achieve its political ends by the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior

and keeping society under close surveillance and control.” (Brzezinski 252) These are remarks

which ought to remind fatuous left liberals, who have been deluded by Zbig’s re-invention of

himself in an anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war mode, that they are dealing here with one very sinister

totalitarian elitist.

HYPOTHESIS: A QUARTER CENTURY OF TRILATERAL INDOCTRINATION

The inevitable corollary of the Brzezinski-Huntington analysis as developed in the post-Carter

era is the need to prepare political operatives to intervene in the creedal passion period or general

political upsurge which was expected to emerge around 2010. This would suggest that Brzezinski,

Huntington, and other Trilateral operatives were keeping their eyes open for suitable political talent

which they could identify, recruit, and begin grooming for use a quarter-century in the future. To

those for whom such a protracted process might seem to be fantastic and conspiratorial, let it be

pointed out that the career timescale involved hardly differs from the typical career of a military

officer, a bank executive, or a top-flight academic. To those who are accustomed to living from one

paycheck to the next, a 25-year perspective may seem like extraordinary foresight. To those

accustomed to viewing the world from the apex of huge organizations, it looks like something

rather routine and prosaic.

The hypothesis advocated here is therefore that Obama has been a protected and controlled asset

of the Trilateral Commission since his time at Columbia University between 1981 and 1983. Since

the moment of his recruitment, Obama’s career has been promoted, fostered, preferred, and

otherwise protected by the Trilateral financier network.

DEVAL PATRICK: BRZEZINSKI’S SPARE OBAMA

The interchangeability of Obama and Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is important

because the two of them remind us of the procedures used by the Trilateral managers the last time

they installed a puppet president – Jimmy Carter. As Zbigniew Brzezinski tells us with startling

brutality in his memoir entitled Power and Principle, the Trilaterals did not put all their eggs in one

basket when it came to grooming a puppet for the 1976 election. Their favored choice was that

messianic peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia who in fact won the presidency. But they always

retained a fallback option as well. As Brzezinski relates, this was another southern Democratic

Governor, Reubin Askew of Florida. If Carter had overdosed, suffered a nervous breakdown, or

58 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

been indicted, Askew would have been rushed into the breach to take his place. Since the spare

candidate or fallback option needed had to be a relatively prominent public figure, it is virtually

impossible to conceal the fact that an understudy is waiting in the wings. The existence of Patrick

as Obama’s virtual twin is therefore of critical importance for the argument that Obama is in fact a

Manchurian candidate created and controlled by the Trilateral commission and its allies.

The parallels are indeed striking, starting with the fact that both Obama and Patrick are fatherless

boys who are therefore susceptible to seeing a powerful institution or authority figure as an ersatz

father. Patrick was born on the South Side of Chicago, Illinois, into an African-American family

living on welfare in a two-bedroom slum apartment. In 1959, his father Laurdine “Pat” Patrick, a

member of jazz musician Sun Ra’s band, deserted Deval, his mother, and his sister in order to

pursue his music career in New York City, where he had fathered a daughter by another woman.

Deval’s relationship with his father, like Obama’s, was a lamentable one. Deval was in middle

school when he was picked up by a foundation called A Better Chance, a national non-profit

organization for identifying, recruiting, co-opting, and developing leaders among smart black

students. Thanks to this foundation backing, Deval was able to attend the exclusive, costly, and elite

Milton Academy in Milton, Massachusetts – a local prep school equivalent to Obama’s Punahou

School in Hawaii. Patrick graduated from Milton Academy in 1974, and from Harvard College in

1978. At Harvard, Patrick was co-opted into the ultra-elitist Fly Club, Harvard’s answer to Yale’s

Skull and Bones secret society. He then spent a year working for the United Nations in Africa. In

1979, Patrick enrolled in Harvard Law School. While in law school, Patrick was elected president

of the Legal Aid Bureau; Obama would top that by becoming the editor of the law review. Patrick

got his first job defending poor families in Middlesex County, Massachusetts – similar to Obama’s

apprenticeship as a community organizing counter-insurgency operative. Patrick’s wife, like

Obama’s, is an upwardly mobile member of the black affirmative-action overclass.

OBAMA DISCREDITED IN MASSACHUSETTS,

NEW HAMPSHIRE, RHODE ISLAND

Patrick spoiled Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island (where the television comes

from Boston) for Obama’s future chances by his blatant nepotism and greedy rapacity in office. He

spent $11,000 on drapery for the governor’s state house suite, changed the governor’s car from a

Crown Victoria to a Cadillac, and hired a chief of staff for his wife at an annual salary of almost

$75,000. He commandeered a state helicopter for his private use. Patrick lavished all this on himself

while demanding austerity and service cuts for the people, as Obama is also sure to do. Patrick was

also remarkably corrupt: he placed a call to Citigroup Executive Committee chair Robert Rubin on

behalf of the financially beleaguered mortgage company Ameriquest, a subsidiary of ACC Capital

Holdings, of which Patrick is a former board member. Patrick later attempted to lie his way out of

this predicament with the absurd claim that he was calling not as governor but as a private citizen.

When this ploy failed, the skewered Patrick plaintively confessed: “I appreciate that I should not

have made the call. I regret the mistake.”

Patrick, like Jeremiah Wright, was a devotee of the blowback theory of the 9/11 terrorist attacks,

a hallmark of left CIA sponsorship. On the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 events on September 11,

2007, Patrick declaimed: “It was a mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States. But it was

also about the failure of human beings to understand each other and to learn to love each other. It

seems to me that lesson of that morning is something that we must carry with us every day.” In

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 59

another telling incident, one of Patrick’s aides (a certain Carl Stanley McGee) was arrested in

Florida in December 2007 for the sexual assault of a 15-year old boy in a Florida hotel.

Early in Patrick’s term, only 48 percent of Massachusetts voters approved of the way he was

handling the job, while 33 percent disapproved — a relatively high number for a governor’s

honeymoon period, said Andrew E. Smith, director of The Survey Center at the University of New

Hampshire. 44 percent said Massachusetts is headed in the right direction, while 56 percent said the

state is off course. (Boston Globe, April 8, 2007)

BUSINESS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

Obama’s first job after leaving Columbia was with Business International Corporation (BIC), a

private intelligence company which provided information and know-how to US companies seeking

to do business overseas. Obama worked as a consultant and financial journalist. So far as is known,

Business International Corporation was never identified as a CIA front company, but it had the telltale

earmarks of one. Its business of journalism and reporting, ferreting out information about

conditions in foreign countries was a perfect cover story for spying of all sorts. Business

International went out of existence when it was acquired the London Economist Intelligence Unit,

an operation that notoriously moved in the orbit of British intelligence.

Once again, Obama covers up whatever may have happened in reality by throwing up a

smokescreen of racial conflict. This time it was the first temptation of St. Barack by the devil

(“white” society, as always). Dan Armstrong, who knew Obama when he was working at BIC, has

stressed that Obama’s account of the firm and his job there is far from accurate: ‘Mr. Armstrong’s

description of the firm, and those of other co-workers, differs at least in emphasis from Mr.

Obama’s. It was a small newsletter-publishing and research firm, with about 250 employees

worldwide, that helped companies with foreign operations (they could be called multinationals)

understand overseas markets, they said. Far from a bastion of corporate conformity, they said, it was

informal and staffed by young people making modest wages. Employees called it “high school with

ashtrays.” Mr. Obama was a researcher and writer for a reference service called Financing Foreign

Operations. He also wrote for a newsletter, Business International Money Report. […] “It was not

working for General Foods or Chase Manhattan, that’s for sure,” said Louis Celi, a vice president at

the company, which was later taken over by the Economist Intelligence Unit. “And it was not a

consulting firm by any stretch of the imagination. I remember the first time I interviewed someone

from Morgan Stanley and I got cheese on my tie because I thought my tie was a napkin.”’ (Janny

Scott, “Obama’s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say,” New York

Times, October 30, 2007) Armstrong’s view is that Obama has distorted what went on at BIC to

make himself look good, specifically by concocting a moment in which he turns away from the

corrupt fleshpots of whitey’s world.

THE TEMPTATIONS OF ST. BARACK

Obama writes the following about his career at BIC in Dreams: “Eventually a consulting house

to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant. Like a spy behind enemy

lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking

the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe. As far as I could

tell I was the only black man in the company, a source of shame for me but a source of considerable

pride for the company’s secretarial pool.” Armstrong refutes most of these points, noting that there

were other black people working there at the time, and noting:

60 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

… after reading his autobiography, I have to say that Barack engages in some serious

exaggeration when he describes a job that he held in the mid-1980s. I know because I sat down

the hall from him, in the same department, and worked closely with his boss. I can’t say I was

particularly close to Barack – he was reserved and distant towards all of his co-workers – but I

was probably as close to him as anyone. I certainly know what he did there, and it bears only a

loose resemblance to what he wrote in his book. First, it wasn’t a consulting house; it was a

small company that published newsletters on international business. Like most newsletter

publishers, it was a bit of a sweatshop. I’m sure we all wished that we were high-priced

consultants to multinational corporations. But we also enjoyed coming in at ten, wearing jeans

to work, flirting with our co-workers, partying when we stayed late, and bonding over the low

salaries and heavy workload. Barack worked on one of the company’s reference publications.

Each month customers got a new set of pages on business conditions in a particular country,

punched to fit into a three-ring binder. Barack’s job was to get copy from the country

correspondents and edit it so that it fit into a standard outline. There was probably some

research involved as well, since correspondents usually don’t send exactly what you ask for,

and you can’t always decipher their copy. But essentially the job was copyediting. It’s also not

true that Barack was the only black man in the company. He was the only black professional

man. Fred was an African-American who worked in the mailroom with his son. My boss and I

used to join them on Friday afternoons to drink beer behind the stacks of office supplies. That’s

not the kind of thing that Barack would do. Like I said, he was somewhat aloof.

Out of these mundane facts, Obama (or more likely his ghostwriters) construct a modern

morality play to burnish the credentials of an ambitious young proto-pol: “…as the months passed, I

felt the idea of becoming an organizer slipping away from me. The company promoted me to the

position of financial writer. I had my own office, my own secretary; money in the bank. Sometimes,

coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my

reflection in the elevator doors—see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand—and for a split

second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before

I remembered who it was that I had told myself I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of

resolve.” (Dreams)

Armstrong notes ironically: “If Barack was promoted, his new job responsibilities were more of

the same – rewriting other people’s copy. As far as I know, he always had a small office, and the

idea that he had a secretary is laughable. Only the company president had a secretary. Barack never

left the office, never wore a tie, and had neither reason nor opportunity to interview Japanese

financiers or German bond traders.” Obama wants the reader to believe that he was saved from a

life of corporate ambition by a telephone call from his African, Kenyan sister, who wanted to tell

him that their brother (or half-brother) David had been killed in a motorcycle accident: “Then one

day, as I sat down at my computer to write an article on interest-rate swaps, something unexpected

happened. Auma called. I had never met this half sister; we had written only intermittently …a few

months after Auma called, I turned in my resignation at the consulting firm and began looking in

earnest for an organizing job.” (Dreams) Armstrong points out that what Obama “means here is that

he got copy from a correspondent who didn’t understand interest rate swaps, and he was trying to

make sense out of it.”

PORTRAIT OF THE CANDIDATE AS A YOUNG MEGALOMANIAC

In Armstrong’s view, the entire story of this turning point in the life of the selfless young

community organizer was a tissue of lies: “All of Barack’s embellishment serves a larger narrative

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 61

purpose: to retell the story of the Christ’s temptation. The young, idealistic, would-be community

organizer gets a nice suit, joins a consulting house, starts hanging out with investment bankers, and

barely escapes moving into the big mansion with the white folks. Luckily, an angel calls, awakens

his conscience, and helps him choose instead to fight for the people. I’m disappointed. Barack’s

story may be true, but many of the facts are not. His larger narrative purpose requires him to

embellish his role. I don’t buy it. Just as I can’t be inspired by Steve Jobs now that I know how

dishonest he is, I can’t listen uncritically to Barack Obama now that I know he’s willing to bend the

facts to his purpose.” Dan Armstrong, “Barack Obama Embellishes His Resume,”

http://analyzethis.net/blog/index.php

Here appears an aspect of Obama’s life which has since become notorious – the identification of

his undistinguished self with Jesus Christ, the Messiah and Son of God. If Armstrong is right about

this parable of the temptations, Obama really does believe that he is the Savior, and has thought this

for almost fifteen years at minimum. Some choose to mimic Christ, some choose to mimic

Napoleon, but the common denominator is megalomania, the most succinct summary of Obama’s

mentality – and, ironically, one that puts him in the same psychopathological class with his apparent

polar opposite, George W. Bush, who is also a megalomaniac, as Dr. Justin Frank has pointed out.

There was another dangerous temptation lurking in Obama’s life. Obama had expressed his

scorn for those he called “half-breeds” who preferred white people to blacks. After college, he lived

with a white woman, but then decided to push her away when he realized that he would have to

assimilate into her (“white”) world, and not vice versa. He later married Michelle, the upwardly

mobile black woman lawyer. Obama’s choices were based on very solid political reasoning: if he

had come forward to run for the presidency with a white woman for his consort, he would have

been politically doomed by the resentment of black women, many of whom would have interpreted

this choice as a confirmation of racial stereotypes held by black males against them, stereotypes

concretely expressed in preference for white women. A white wife would have been political

suicide. When the Greenwich Village poetaster LeRoi Jones wanted to become the black nationalist

organizer Amiri Baraka, it was imperative that he jettison his white wife, who would have been a

fatal impediment for his planned activity in the service of the Prudential Insurance Company –

provoking clashes with poor Italians in the streets of Newark, New Jersey as part of a

counterinsurgency scheme.

NADERITE PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, NEW YORK CITY

After BIC, Obama moved on for a stint at Ralph Nader’s Public Interest Research Group in New

York City, a nonprofit group which billed itself as promoting “consumer, environmental and

government reform.” According to Janny Scott, Obama “became a full-time organizer at City

College in Harlem, paid slightly less than $10,000 a year to mobilize student volunteers.” Nader’s

groups attempt to carry out feasible reforms in the areas of health, safety, and consumer issues, all

under the banner of “good government” – the eternal slogan of reform Democrats and upscale

suburbanites who are horrified by the venality of politics among poor people and the underclass.

Obama’s specific assignment was the one he has tried and failed to carry out in 2008: to take

projects that were designed to appeal to affluent suburbanites and sell them to people much lower

on the socioeconomic scale. His job was an exercise in condescending Malthusian elitism: ‘Mr.

Obama says he spent three months “trying to convince minority students at City College about the

importance of recycling” — a description that surprised some former colleagues. They said that

more “bread-and-butter issues” like mass transit, higher education, tuition and financial aid were

62 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

more likely the emphasis at City College. “You needed somebody — and here was where Barack

was a star — who could make the case to students across the political spectrum,” said Eileen

Hershenov, who oversaw Mr. Obama’s work for Nypirg. The job required winning over students on

the political left, who would normally disdain a group inspired by Ralph Nader as insufficiently

radical, as well as students on the right and those who were not active at all.”’ (Janny Scott,

“Obama’s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say,” New York Times,

October 30, 2007) Obama failed then, and he is failing again this time in his quest to market elitist

issues among those with urgent economic needs.

GAMALIEL FOUNDATION, CHICAGO: ALINSKYITE COUNTERINSURGENCY

Obama embarked on what he says, even now, was the hardest work of his life: the three and a

half years of community organizing in the impoverished neighborhoods of Chicago’s far South

Side. His job: to work with the Developing Communities Project, a church-based effort that aimed

to organize low-income residents to improve local conditions. … his friend Valerie Jarrett, former

chairman of the Chicago Stock Exchange, told me. Obama himself described the years in Chicago

to me as the time when he “finally and fully grew up.” (Purdum, Vanity Fair, March 2008)

Obama loves to boast that he served for some years as a community organizer. The problem for

most people is that they have very little concrete notion what this might mean. This needs a few

words of explanation. The Developing Communities Project was an operation of the Gamaliel

Foundation, the temple of the organizing methods associated with Saul Alinsky, who had been

preaching community organizing since the World War II era. The Gamaliel Foundation was also a

satellite of the Ford Foundation, the flagship US foundation devoted to preventing the emergence of

any social-political challenge to the dominance of Wall Street financiers over the crumbling US

society. Money for Obama also came from the Woods Fund, a foundation created by the reactionary

Woods family, who owned coal mines that provided the coal for Commonwealth Edison, where the

dominant figure was Thomas Ayers, the father of Obama’s terrorist friend, foundation operative Bill

Ayers.

The best term for Saul Alinsky was that he was a counter-insurgent, quite independent of his

personal understanding of the matter. Alinsky’s community organizing specified that people ought

to be organized locally and on the basis of the lowest common denominator, generally some petty

local grievance, although sometimes based on poverty, but only if it were understood as a purely

local issue. Alinsky was obsessed with everything that was fragmented, parochial, localistic,

balkanized, sub-divided neighborhood by neighborhood, precinct by precinct, block by block. In his

dream world, one local group of Hungarian steelworkers would fight to get a sewer fixed. A few

hundred yards away, a black community group would fight the city government to get a public

library. Nearby a group of women would be demanding a daycare facility. A men’s club would

struggle to clean up the public park. None of these groups would be in any contact with any others.

They would not act politically, would not support candidates; they would only exert pressure on

corporations, governments, and so forth.

Each of these tiny groups would be fragmented and impotent and helpless in a real emergency,

like a depression, a war, or a police state. Above all, they would never be able to advance an

alternative to Wall Street domination, which was so far beyond the local purview that it never came

up – and yet, this was always the heart of the matter. It was more likely that a black local group

would fight a white one, with unemployed or parents fighting the teachers’ union, or some other

futile clash. Sometimes Alinsky’s methods won some trifling local concession, but often the yield

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 63

was nil. The more common outcome was that the local organizers became demoralized by a long

series of defeats, and drifted off into boredom, despair, and de-politicization. This is in fact the

outcome that appears to have crowned the career of Barack Obama as a community organizer in

Chicago in the 1990s; after three years of futility, Obama was canny enough to depart the scene in

favor of the Harvard Law School, another stepping stone in his glittering political career.

Obama went to Chicago in 1985. He worked as a community organizer among low-income

residents in Chicago’s Roseland community and the Altgeld Gardens public housing development

on the city’s South Side. The Developing Communities Project (DCP) counter-insurgency effort

was funded by the Gamaliel Foundation, which was heavily funded by the flagship Ford

Foundation. DCP purported to offer job training and college prep on Chicago’s South Side. The real

problems of blacks on the South Side of Chicago were the soaring unemployment and

imprisonment among the area’s mostly black workers – issues that Obama never addressed.

The Gamaliel Foundation’s own website informs the public that “the Gamaliel Foundation

receives grants from the Bauman Family Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation, the Carnegie

Corporation of New York, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Ford Foundation, George Soros’ Open

Society Institute, and others.” (www.gamaliel.org) Obama has thus been a Ford Foundation-Soros

asset going back more than twenty years. The Developing Communities Project (DCP) was

associated with the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago. Both the

CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid

organizers learned how to “rub raw the sores of discontent,” as Alinsky put it. The element of

manipulation is clear enough, even in the abstract theory. One of Obama’s early mentors in the

Alinsky method was Mike Kruglik, presumably the Marty Kaufman (or part of that composite

character) that Obama writes about in Dreams. Kruglik later told the New Republic that Obama

“was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting

targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their

own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing,

sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their

egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.”

Alinsky had told his agitators to bring people to the “realization” that they are indeed miserable,

that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations. (This is already

absurd, since it is the economic breakdown crisis itself that radicalizes those who experience it. The

task of an organizer is to develop strategy and programs to allow a popular movement to challenge

the financier elite at the highest level – state power, not petty community control or local control,

where defeat is always guaranteed.) The task of the agitator is then to help them to bond together to

demand what they deserve, and to agitate so energetically that governments and corporations will

see “self-interest” in granting the demands of the local agitators. Obama had a four-year education

in these crude Alinsky methods, which he often says was the best education he ever got anywhere –

in profiling and manipulation, since these are the essence of the Alinsky divide-and-conquer method

of counterinsurgency.

PREVARICATION IN THE HOOD

Obama paints a moderately flattering picture of himself as a community organizer in Dreams.

But even here, he has faced charges of embroidering and embellishing his record to make himself

look good. The criticism comes from the long-time local activist Hazel Johnson, who has disputed

the account of events at Altgeld Gardens that Obama put into his book, and which he has repeated at

64 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

innumerable political appearances over the years. The local CBS affiliate in Chicago went to the

Altgeld neighborhood and found that ‘some say Illinois Senator Barack Obama gave himself a little

too much credit for his work as a community organizer. Obama’s past work in the troubled Altgeld

Gardens housing project is a staple of his presidential stump speeches, and a significant part of his

first book. …at least one resident who worked with Obama back then is unhappy with the senator’s

recollection. Hazel Johnson and her daughter Cheryl are disputing some parts of the version of

events Obama tells. They do not, however, dispute that he worked hard at Altgeld Gardens and say

they are supporting his presidential campaign. But, Johnson says in his book, Dreams from My

Father, and in campaign stump speeches, Obama gets some things wrong about the months he spent

working in Altgeld Gardens in the 1980s. She and her daughter Cheryl produced a document, for

example, showing Obama’s 1987 salary as an organizer in the development to be $25,000 – not the

$13,000 he often talks about. There is a very simple explanation for that, Obama’s aides say. He did

indeed make $25, 000 in 1987, but he was initially hired in 1985 at a salary of $13,000. And, they

claim, Obama didn’t work cleaning up asbestos at Altgeld, but fiberglass, another environmental

hazard. They also dispute his version of an incident in which Obama claimed Altgeld Gardens

residents beat on the car of a government official they were unhappy with. “I think he portrayed us

as barbaric that we ran behind CHA officials beating on the car, and that didn’t take place, because I

was in that particular meeting” Cheryl Johnson said.’ Perhaps Obama thinks that the masses are

after all a great beast.

Interestingly, the one community source who came forward to endorse Obama’s version of

events is a person who was currently on the payroll of the Gamaliel Foundation, and who can thus

be located in the larger orbit of the Ford Foundation. This was the Jesuit priest Greg Golluzzo. ‘“I

discussed every item of this,” said Greg Golluzzo of the Gamaliel Foundation. … Johnson says that

since all of this has come up, she thinks Obama should go talk to her.’(Mike Flannery, “Altgeld

Gardens Resident Who Worked With Senator in 1980s Says He Is Exaggerating His Role,”

Cbsnews.com, 2007) Obama has not returned to Altgeld to answer the criticisms of Hazel Johnson.

When Obama’s fellow foundation operative Gerald Kellman summed up Obama’s years of work,

he recognized that it had all been a big failure: “It is clear that the benefit of those years to Mr.

Obama dwarfs what he accomplished. Mr. Kellman said that Mr. Obama had built the

organization’s following among needy residents and black ministers, but “on issues, we made very

little progress, nothing that would change poverty on the South Side of Chicago.”14 So Obama was a

failure as a community organizer. His other big project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, was also

a failure in improving education in Chicago, as we will see.

HILLARY REJECTED ALINSKY; OBAMA EMBRACED HIM

Other commentators have tried to show that Obama is still using Alinsky methods in the running

of his presidential campaign. One right-wing observer writes: “Obama also appears to have

mastered the playbook used by…the legendary amoral guru of left wing activism, Saul Alinsky….”

(Kyle-Anne Shiver, Obama’s Alinsky Jujitsu, American Thinker, February 25, 2008) In fact, rightwing

writers on the Clinton-Obama contest have attempted to equate the outlooks of these two

candidates based on the bare fact that they both came into contact with the Alinskyite counterinsurgency

doctrine. The big difference is that Obama looked at the Alinskyite school of organizing,

and decided to join it. Hillary looked at Alinsky in considerable depth, found it totally inadequate,

and turned away.

Hillary’s views are found in her senior thesis from Wellesley College which, contrary to popular

belief, is readily available to the public. Hillary saw an Alinsky who tried to escape ideological

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 65

categories: ‘“Alinsky, cringing at the use of labels, ruefully admitted that he might be called an

existentialist,” she found. [We already know what that can mean.] Rodham tried to probe his moral

relativism — particular ends, Alinsky maintained, often justify the means — but Alinsky would

only concede that “idealism can parallel self-interest.” Hillary tentatively accepted Alinsky’s

contention that the problem of the poor isn’t so much a lack of money as a lack of power, as well as

his skeptical view of federal anti-poverty programs as ineffective. (Alinsky took the facile view,

shared by the GOP, that Johnson’s War on Poverty was a “prize piece of political pornography,”

even though he collected funds from the Office of Economic Opportunity.) It is clear that Alinsky

wanted everything to come out of the do-it-yourself bag of the local community organizer, a kind of

nomadic left-wing anarchist who viewed the state as an adversary. Organizing in the Democratic

Party was too broad, and might develop into an actual challenge to the ruling class, the very thing

that Alinsky’s owners were using him to head off. Hillary conceded what was obvious: “A cycle of

dependency has been created,” she wrote, “which ensnares its victims into resignation and apathy.”

Hillary advanced a “perspective” or critique of Alinsky’s methods, citing especially scholars who

claimed that Alinsky’s small gains actually delayed attainment of bigger goals for the poor and

minorities.

Hillary noted the “few material gains” that Alinsky’s methods were capable of obtaining, such as

forcing Kodak to hire blacks in Rochester, New York, or delaying the University of Chicago’s

expansion into the Woodlawn neighborhood, the very Hyde Park community later represented by

Barack and policed by Michelle. Hillary attributed part of Alinsky’s failure to shifting demography

and the diminishing role of neighborhoods in American life. She also showed that many projects

depended completely on the presence of Alinsky personally – hardly a recipe for empowering

others: “One of the primary problems of the Alinsky model is that the removal of Alinsky

dramatically alters its composition,” she wrote; “Alinsky is a born organizer who is not easily

duplicated, but, in addition to his skill, he is a man of exceptional charm.”

Hillary’s final verdict was that the Alinsky school of micro-organizing could never work in a

mass society; the Alinsky “power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social

conflicts” — over-arching national issues such as racial tension and segregation, prosperity and

economic depression. Alinsky never had any success in forming an effective national movement,

she said, suggesting the futility of “the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict.” Alinsky

sometimes threatened small-scale disruptions to extort temporary, local concessions. Hillary

concluded that the mini-conflict approach to large-scale power is limited. “Alinsky’s conclusion

that the ‘ventilation’ of hostilities is healthy in certain situations is valid, but across-the-board

‘social catharsis’ cannot be prescribed,” she wrote.

Hillary brought Alinsky to Wellesley in January 1969 to speak at a private dinner for a dozen

students; he expressed dissatisfaction with New Left protesters such as the Students for a

Democratic Society. Rodham closed her thesis with the obligatory flourish by saying that she

reserved a place for Alinsky in the pantheon of social justice activists next to Martin Luther King,

Walt Whitman, and perennial socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs. She also ironically

suggested that Alinsky was a part of the establishment: “In spite of his being featured in the Sunday

New York Times,” she wrote, “and living a comfortable, expenses-paid life, he considers himself a

revolutionary. In a very important way he is. If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the

result would be social revolution. Ironically, this is not a disjunctive projection if considered in the

tradition of Western democratic theory. In the first chapter it was pointed out that Alinsky is

regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been

feared — because each embraced the most radical of political faiths — democracy.”’ (Bill Dedman,

66 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

“Reading Hillary Clinton’s Hidden Thesis,” MSNBC, May. 9, 2007) Alinsky offered Hillary a job

as a community organizer, which she had the good sense to refuse. Obama later accepted just such a

job from the Gamaliel Foundation after Alinsky’s death.15

OBAMA’S ROOTS TRIP TO KENYA

After quitting his job as a community organizer, Obama decided to make his obligatory

pilgrimage to Kenya, where he had never been. By this time his father was deceased. He traveled by

way of London. A conversation about political and economic conditions in Africa with a young

Englishman in the airplane gives Obama another chance to reflect on his favorite obsession, race.

Here he found yet another opportunity to reflect on his “own uneasy status: a Westerner not entirely

at home in the West, an African on his way to a land full of strangers.” (Dreams 310) He has an

opportunity to travel around Europe for three weeks in a grand tour that most American middle

class families of whatever race were already unable to provide for their children, or for themselves

in retirement. Obama tells us that he visited London, Paris, Madrid, and Rome, and then concluded

that it was all a terrible mistake:

…by the end of the first week I realized that I’d made a mistake. It wasn’t that Europe wasn’t

beautiful; everything was just as I’d imagined it. It just wasn’t mine. I felt as if I were living out

someone else’s romance; the incompleteness of my own history stood between me and the sites

I saw like a hard pane of glass. I began to suspect that my European stop was just one more

means of delay, one more attempt to avoid coming to terms with the Old Man. Stripped of

language, stripped of work and routine – stripped even of the racial obsessions to which I’d

become accustomed and which I had taken (perversely) as a sign of my own maturation – I had

been forced to look inside myself and had found only a great emptiness there. (Dreams 301-

302)

Obama, we see, was a convinced existentialist.

OBAMA AND THE DECLINE OF THE WEST

Here Obama’s racist psychopathology is displayed in the sharpest relief. Had he already been

imbibing Wright’s hate-mongering theories about the Italian garlic noses and the inferiority of the

Irish? Europe represents a huge chunk of the historical experience of humanity as a whole, but

Obama’s racist obsession leads him to conclude that it does not belong to him – despite the obvious

facts that the language, institutions, science, technology, and all the related components of his life

derive from European models. Obama rejects what he sees, and clings to the empty abstraction of

Afrocentrism, albeit tinged with a heavy dose of existentialism. If he had gone to China, Obama

would not have pondered that the majority of the man-days lived by humanity have probably been

Chinese; he would have rejected China too, on the same explicitly racist grounds. Obama explicitly

rejects the unity and wholeness of human history. He imagines that history is made up of a series of

self-contained and hermetically sealed races, and that no race exercises any influence over the

internal life of another race. With this, historical reality goes out the window, and is sure to be

replaced by racist myths.

Obama turns out to be close to the pre-fascist pessimist Oswald Spengler, the 1920s theoretician

of the Decline of the West, who also thought of each Kultur as being axiomatically independent of

and untouched by all the others, with each one living out its own appointed life span. Obama’s

contemptuous dismissal of Europe obliges us to label him as a fanatic and an incurable racist.

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 67

Obama’s maître à penser Jeremiah Wright has mocked and derided European classical music in

general and Georg Friedrich Handel in particular. The common ground between Obama and Wright,

which some have suspected even as others indignantly denied it, turns out to be quite substantial.

Turning away from Europe, Obama was confronted with the pervasive polygamy of his own

father, his own tribe, and his own Kenyan ancestors. Obama’s 40-year-old cousin Said Hussein

Obama later recalled, “My cousin found it difficult when he came here to learn his six half-brothers

and sisters were born to four different mothers.” In reality, the number of Obama Senior’s offspring

may be even greater, as we have already seen. “The person who made me proudest of all,” Obama

added in his memoir, “was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years

ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam, and has sworn off pork and

tobacco and alcohol.” (Dreams 441) This Abongo “Roy” Obama is a Luo activist and a militant

Muslim who now contends that the black man must “liberate himself from the poisoning influences

of European culture.” In other words, Roy has also embraced Fanon. Roy has called on his younger

half-brother to embrace his African heritage. (Dreams 441) Roy’s role, if any, in the violent tribal

conflict which has been convulsing Kenya in 2007-2008 is not known.

HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: ANOTHER WALL OF SECRECY, 1988-1991

Obama then entered Harvard Law School in 1988. In February 1990, he was elected the first

African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review, and received a first wave of positive publicity

in the New York Times. Obama graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude in 1991. Obama’s

professors were aware that he was slippery: “He then and now is very hard to pin down,” said

Kenneth Mack, then a classmate and now a professor at the law school. Becoming the first black

president of the law review was a highly political process, and not only an academic or technical

one. Winning the position was a matter of political finesse, and clearly of some successful

manipulation. “He was able to work with conservatives as well as liberals,” says Obama’s friend

Michael Froman, who is currently an executive at Citigroup.

Obama’s greatest fan appears to have been Professor Laurence Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb

Professor at Harvard University. Tribe taught Obama and employed him as a research assistant. He

remembers him as a “brilliant, personable, and obviously unique” person. Tribe said that Obama’s

theoretical perspective on applying modern physics to law was “very impressive.” Obama never

talks about this theory, but it reeks of the unbridled relativism that can make of the Constitution

whatever one wants. Tribe is of course a darling of the liberal media who later argued Al Gore’s

Florida case before the Supreme Court in December 2000. Tribe says that Obama was one of his

two best students ever, and adds: “He had a very powerful ability to synthesize diverse sources of

information.” (Wallace Wood, Rolling Stone)

Obama is alleged to have contributed to Tribe’s bizarre 1989 article in the Harvard Law Review

entitled “The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn From Modern Physics.”

This is a 39-page treatise which argues that constitutional jurisprudence should be revised in a way

which recalls the process by which Einstein’s theory of relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics.

On the surface, Tribe and Obama were arguing against the absurd and suffocating “original intent”

method of the right-wing reactionary Federalist Society. But their arguments would also open the

door to boundless arbitrary caprice and abuse by removing any notion of natural law from the

method of construing the Constitution. Obama is thus capable of rejecting the manacles of original

intent for a Cole Porter doctrine of “anything goes” in legal positivism, which would open the door

68 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

to fascist innovation in a way that even “original intent” has not been able to do. Once again, we are

looking here at the transition from reaction to fascism.

OGLETREE AND REPARATIONS

Another significant mentor for Obama was the black Professor Charles Ogletree, who is one of

the leading proponents of reparations for slavery. Reparations are a favorite tactic of the foundations

and the counter-insurgency community in general, since this ploy holds out the promise of a whole

new cycle of futile and self-defeating racial conflict in the United States, thus safeguarding financier

rule for another historical epoch. It is especially absurd in the light of the growing numbers of

Latinos, Asians, and other more recent immigrants who have no connection whatsoever to slavery

and Jim Crow. The serious approach would be a class-based approach, with working people of all

ethnic and racial groups forming a united front to extract from Wall Street the necessary means for

social and economic renewal in housing, health care, jobs, education, mass transit, and related areas.

This is exactly what the reparations issue is designed to prevent.

When Wright went to the National Press Club, the only specific demand he made was for an

apology for slavery. It is widely assumed that such an apology, while fully justified in itself, would

be seized on by the foundation-funded affirmative action black overclass to demand reparations, of

which the black overclass would receive the lion’s share, while the inner-city ghetto would sink

ever deeper into despair and poverty. “This matter is growing in significance rather than declining,”

Ogletree recently commented. “It has more vigor and vitality in the 21st century than it’s had in the

history of the reparations movement.” Professor Ogletree was an advisor to Obama during his 2004

Senate candidacy and serves as an advisor to him now. (AP, July 9, 2006) It is therefore quite

possible that, in addition to a global warming tax and a third world solidarity tax, a future Obama

regime might try to impose a slavery reparations tax. Under the likely conditions of economic

breakdown in this country such an attempt, whatever the abstract balance of equities, might well

lead to the worst of all possible outcomes, civil war. We will have more to say about Obama’s

secret agenda for reparations later in this study.

Evelyn Pringle, who has delved into the labyrinth of Chicago corruption in which Obama

wallowed for so many years, has found that the mafioso and underworld figure Antoin Rezko,

Obama’s prime moneybags for much of his earlier career, came into contact with Obama while he

was still in law school and tried to hire him immediately as a mouth-piece for Rezko’s underworld

empire: in the arguments at the spring 2008 Rezko trial, it was revealed that he ‘“met Barack

Obama when he was in Harvard Law School and tried to hire him” to be the lawyer for his

development company.’

A well-informed expert on Chicago political corruption, Pringle shows that Rezko and Obama

go way back together: ‘Obama says he met Rezko, when he got a call right out of the blue from

David Brint, after he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review, wanting to know if he

would be interested in being a developer for Rezko’s real estate company, Rezmar. Because they

read that he was interested in community development work, Obama says, Rezko and his two

partners, Mahru and Brint, met with him to discuss the job. “I said no, but I remained friendly with

all three of them,” Obama said in the Chicago Tribune on November 1, 2006. In fact, Obama told

the Tribune that Rezko “might have raised $50,000 to $75,000” for one campaign alone in his failed

run for Congress in 2000.’ (Evelyn Pringle, op-ed news) In Obama’s life, there are too many of

these coincidences; we can feel the mysterious action of the Trilateral invisible hand. As for Obama

and Rezko, they go back to 1991 or earlier.

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 69

OBAMA’S WORLD: THE FOUNDATIONS

We have already seen Obama in his role as a community organizer for the Gamaliel foundation.

We must stress that Obama’s role as a foundation operative begins here, but certainly does not end

when he goes off to law school. No indeed: the vocation of being a foundation operative constitutes

Obama’s family business. His mother was a Ford Foundation operative, and most of the jobs

Obama has ever held were with foundations. When it came time for Obama to start going to

church, he unfailingly chose a congregation where Ford Foundation race theory is projected onto

the plane of heaven and eternity in the form of the provocateur religion of Black liberation theology.

Before we go any further with Obama’s own story, it will be useful to offer an overview of the

strategic orientation of US foundation operations during this timeframe. Foundations represent an

extremely important part of the social control mechanisms which prevail today in the United States.

The foundations are all the more effective in their chosen work of social control, engineering and

political manipulation because many people are simply unaware of the immense scale of their

operations, even though every broadcast on public television or National Public Radio is always

accompanied by a litany of the foundations which have financed that program. One way to

understand the pervasive influence of foundations is to say that they are as omnipresent in this

country today as the CIA and the FBI were during the Cold War. This is partly because many

intelligence community operations of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s have morphed into foundations under

the auspices of President Reagan’s Executive Order 12333, which privatized many of the existing

spook activities. Many naïve people still think of foundations as being humanitarian or charitable

institutions concerned with education, health, and the improvement of the human condition.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Like Henry Ford himself, the Pew family and many other

oligarchical plans whose family fortunes have been transformed into foundations harbored fascist

sympathies during the 1920s and 1930s. Today, they are overwhelmingly multicultural, politically

correct, Malthusian, and neo-Luddite in their ideology. They hate science and technology because

these are seen as avenues of upward social mobility for the lower orders, and as a threat to

continued financier domination. Perhaps more than any other agency, the foundations have

engaged in the strangulation and perversion of the American spirit over these past four decades in

particular.

The late Christopher Lasch, in his classic study The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of

Democracy (New York: Norton, 1995), notes the important role of class prejudice in forming elite

attitudes in this country today. He describes how well-to-do liberals, when confronted with

resistance to their ideas of social engineering, “betray the venomous hatred that lies not far beneath

the smiling face of upper-middle-class benevolence,” and turn on those who “just don’t get it.”

(Lasch, 28) The result is an academic culture which appears to be contemptuous of the human

potential of vast strata of the American population. This is the kind of mentality which we can see

in Obama’s infamous San Francisco “Bittergate” rant. This is a condensed version of the elitist and

left authoritarian mental world of the pro-oligarchical foundation bureaucrats. In order to

understand Obama’s mentality and the decisions he might make as the head of the future regime, we

are therefore obliged to review some critical points about the recent historical record of the Ford

Foundation and its satellites.

Most discussions of Obama’s career as what he calls a “community organizer” are crippled by a

total lack of historical background on the Ford Foundation and its satellites, and further by any

comprehension of the goals of foundation-funded social engineering. Because Obama is so totally a

product of the Ford Foundation and the foundation world of which it is the center, we will have to

70 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

repeat several times in this volume that the main purpose of these foundations by the latter half of

the 20th century was to exercise social control, so as to perpetuate the uncontested political

domination of Wall Street financial interests over the legitimate aspirations of the various ethnic

groups, economic strata, and other components of the American population.

The watchword of the Ford Foundation is Divide and Conquer. The goal of its projects is

always to play one group in the population against some other group so as to create conflict, strife,

and division, so that the Wall Street interests can emerge unscathed and triumph. The

individual foundation grant officers involved in this process may well be motivated by some

hallucination of Marxism, multiculturalism, or political correctness, but it is not these values which

the foundations finally serve: their goal is to disrupt and abort the emergence of anything

approaching a politically conscious united front of the American people capable of demanding

radical economic reforms, and especially to ward off a revival of the New Deal, new political

formations based on economic populism, a Marshall Plan for the cities, including the urban ethnic

minority populations, and so forth.

POVERTY PIMPS FOR THE FOUNDATIONS

When Obama says that he was a community organizer, it would be far more accurate to say that

he was a poverty pimp for the Ford Foundation network, a paid race-monger whose job it was to

organize politically naïve and desperate groups on the south side of Chicago into corporatist, deadend,

fragmented, parochial projects from which they would derive little or no benefit, and the goal

of which was simply to use up enough of their lives in futility until they dropped out altogether in

despair. The only exception to this was the use of these community control or local control or

community action advocacy projects as political pawns against certain state and local political

factions, or as battering rams against other groups of working people, above all trade unions made

up of municipal employees, especially teachers. This is where Obama learned to support “merit

pay” as a weapon against teachers’ unions.

In order to understand the foundation world, it is necessary to recall that these foundations

generally represent the family fortunes of industrialists and businessmen of the 19th and early 20th

centuries – the robber barons – which have been placed into tax-free status as charitable trusts, all

the while perpetuating the urge for power of their founders. The foundations represent family

fortunes or fondi which have attained a kind of oligarchical immortality by transcending the mere

biological existence of the individuals and families who created them, and becoming permanent

institutions destined to endure indefinitely.

These foundations once upon a time had to maintain some credibility by funding hospitals,

universities, libraries, scientific research, and other projects which often had genuine social utility.

Shortly after the Second World War, there began a trend towards social engineering and social

action on the part of the foundations. The leader in this was the Ford Foundation, which, because it

was the largest and wealthiest of the US foundations quickly became the flagship and opinion leader

for the other foundations. Foundation officers represent the very essence of the financier oligarch

mentality, and one result of this is that they generally all do the same thing at the same time in their

respective fields of specialization. Because of this, control over the Ford Foundation represents a

social control mechanism of great strength, which has been a decisive force in shaping the decline

of US society and national life, especially over the last 40 years.

Dean Rusk had served Averill Harriman and Dean Acheson during the Truman administration,

and then became president of the Rockefeller Foundation in the late 1950s; he ‘once described

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 71

Ford’s influence on other foundations: What the “fat boy in the canoe does,” he said, “makes a

difference to everybody else.” And Ford’s influence was never stronger than after it adopted the

cause of social change. Waldemar Nielsen’s monumental studies of foundations, published in 1972

and 1985, only strengthened the Ford effect, for Nielsen celebrated activist philanthropy and berated

those foundations that had not yet converted to the cause. “As a result,” recalls Richard Larry,

president of the Sarah Scaife Foundation, “a number of foundations said: ‘If this is what the

foundation world is doing and what the experts say is important, we should move in that direction,

too.’” The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, for example, funded the National Welfare Rights

Organization—at the same time that the organization was demonstrating against Governor Nelson

Rockefeller of New York. The Carnegie Corporation pumped nearly $20 million into various leftwing

advocacy groups during the 1970s.’ (Heather Mac Donald, “The Billions of Dollars That

Made Things Worse,” City Journal, Autumn 1996)

AGGRESSIVE FOUNDATION ACTIVISM OF THE LATE 1960S

In the second half of the 1960s, the social ferment generated by defeat in Vietnam, the student

movement, the antiwar movement, the civil rights movement, and the gathering economic decline

of the country spurred the foundations into action. With unerring oligarchical class instinct, they

could see the grave danger that might be represented for financier domination by the possible fusion

in a united front of the civil rights movement, the antiwar movement, the labor movement, and the

student movement. Their answer to this was to promote and fund organizational forms that were so

narrow, so fragmented, and so parochial, that they prevented the necessary cooperation among these

movements, thus blocking them from attaining most of their principal goals. Alan Pifer was the

head of the Carnegie Foundation in 1968; in his annual report for that year, Pifer

exhorts his comrades [sic] in the foundation world to help shake up “sterile institutional forms

and procedures left over from the past” by supporting “aggressive new community

organizations which . . . the comfortable stratum of American life would consider disturbing

and perhaps even dangerous.” No longer content to provide mainstream knowledge

dispassionately, America’s most prestigious philanthropies now aspired to revolutionize what

they believed to be a deeply flawed American society. […] Foundation-funded minority

advocates fought for racial separatism and a vast system of quotas—and American society

remains perpetually riven by the issue of race. On most campuses today, a foundation-endowed

multicultural circus has driven out the very idea of a common culture, deriding it as a relic of

American imperialism. Foundation-backed advocates for various “victim” groups use the courts

to bend government policy to their will, thwarting the democratic process. […] The net effect is

not a more just but a more divided and contentious American society. (Heather Mac Donald,

“The Billions of Dollars That Made Things Worse,” City Journal, Autumn 1996)

Right-wing commentators like the one just cited are generally incapable of analyzing the real

motivations for what the foundations do; they usually attribute the catastrophic results of foundation

social engineering to some misguided instincts to do good. Nothing could be further from the truth:

the goal of the foundations is to maintain the brutal regime of finance capital, and this presupposes

that there be no national coalition capable of expressing a national interest in contradiction to the

dictates of the Wall Street financiers. The rightwingers are therefore forced to make up fantastic

stories of how Marxists have crept in to the temples of finance capital by the dark of the moon, so as

to advance their work of revolution. In reality incendiary race baiting and pseudo-revolutionary and

hyper-revolutionary rhetoric are most often the stock in trade of the foundation-funded political

operative, who gets paid good money to inflame the mutual animosities and resentments of groups

72 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

that ought to be uniting against Wall Street, rather than squabbling with each other for some petty

and futile local concession. Barack Hussein Obama is precisely one of these foundation-funded

political operatives or poverty pimps.

The Ford Foundation became more aggressive in its social engineering and more radical in its

methods in order to ward off the threat which was latently present in the political upsurge of the late

1960s: ‘From its start, Ford aimed to be different, eschewing medical research and public health in

favor of social issues such as First Amendment restrictions and undemocratic concentrations of

power, economic problems, world peace, and social science. […] But by the early 1960s, the

trustees started clamoring for a more radical vision; according to Richard Magat, a Ford employee,

they demanded “action-oriented rather than research-oriented” programs that would “test the outer

edges of advocacy and citizen participation.”’ (Heather Mac Donald)

FORD FOUNDATION COMMUNITY ACTION AND THE 1960s GHETTO RIOTS

The beginnings of the local control-community control-poverty pimp apparatus of domestic

social engineering and counterinsurgency goes back to the Ford Foundation’s Gray Areas Project of

the 1960s, which was spearheaded by an obscure and highly influential Ford Foundation operative

named Paul Ylvisaker. ‘The first such “action-oriented” program, the Gray Areas Project, was a

turning point in foundation history and—because it was a prime mover of the ill-starred War on

Poverty—a turning point in American history as well. Its creator, Paul Ylvisaker, an energetic social

theorist from Harvard and subsequent icon for the liberal foundation community, had concluded

that the problems of newly migrated urban blacks and Puerto Ricans could not be solved by the “old

and fixed ways of doing things.” Because existing private and public institutions were unresponsive,

he argued, the new poverty populations needed a totally new institution—the “community action

agency”—to coordinate legal, health, and welfare services and to give voice to the poor. According

to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan… Ford “proposed nothing less than institutional change in the

operation and control of American cities . . . . [Ford] invented a new level of American government:

the inner-city community action agency.” Ylvisaker proceeded to establish such agencies in Boston,

New Haven, Philadelphia, and Oakland.’ (Heather Mac Donald)

The initial phase of Ford Foundation intervention into the black inner-city ghetto under the

rubric of the Gray Areas strategy helped to fuel the Watts, Detroit, and Newark riots of 1965-67.

The community action projects that were begun in these years did not deliver what they promised,

but did set the stage for the futile and self-defeating violence of “Burn, baby, burn,” which was

considered fashionable in the radical chic salons of the day. “Unfortunately, because it was so

intent on persuading the federal government to adopt the program, Ford ignored reports that the

community action agencies were failures,” according to historian Alice O’Connor.

Reincarnated as federal Community Action Programs (CAPs), Ford’s urban cadres soon began

tearing up cities. Militancy became the mark of merit for federal funders, according to Senator

Moynihan. In Newark, the director of the local CAP urged blacks to arm themselves before the

1967 riots; leaflets calling for a demonstration were run off on the CAP’s mimeograph machine.

The federal government funneled community action money to Chicago gangs—posing as

neighborhood organizers—who then continued to terrorize their neighbors. The Syracuse, New

York CAP published a remedial reading manual that declared: “No ends are accomplished without

the use of force. . . . Squeamishness about force is the mark not of idealistic, but moonstruck

morals.” Syracuse CAP employees applied $7 million of their $8 million federal grant to their own

salaries.’ (Heather Mac Donald) McGeorge Bundy should have been arrested for inciting to riot,

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 73

since that is exactly what he was doing. The political benefits of the resulting backlash would of

course be harvested by demagogues like Nixon and Agnew.

THE 1968 NEW YORK CITY TEACHERS’ STRIKE AS A TURNING POINT

A much-neglected turning point of recent American history was unquestionably the disastrous

events associated with the New York City teachers’ strike of 1968. These events have almost been

forgotten, one suspects, because no foundation is eager to dredge them up. Contemporary

observers, however, were clear that they had lived through a deliberately provoked catastrophe:

‘One of the most polarizing events in our recent history was the Ocean Hill-Brownsville dispute

over decentralization and community control which led to the New York teachers’ strike of 1968.

Martin Mayer said of this strike: “The New York teachers’ strike of 1968 seems to me the worst

disaster my native city has experienced in my lifetime.” McGeorge Bundy’s Ford Foundation’s

experiment caused New York City to shut down its educational system. That city became polarized:

new - black militant radicals against old - left radicals, black trade unionists against anti-union

black-power advocates, black against Jew, black against white, striker against non-striker, and

ACLU civil libertarians against seekers of due process.’ (“The Promotion of Domestic Discord,”

Vincent J. Salandria, October 23, 1971)16

MCGEORGE BUNDY:

FROM VIETNAM STRATEGIC HAMLETS TO COMMUNITY CONTROL

In order to fragment, divide, and frustrate the ongoing political upsurge, the organizational forms

which the Ford Foundation was using its fabulous wealth to create had to be as narrow,

fragmented,apolitical, exclusive, and petty as possible. “Community Action Programs were a

calculated means of keeping control. To deliver a particular point of view, foot soldiers got busy.

Militants and Black Power were a joke! The Ford Foundation, through its president, McGeorge

McBundy, was one step ahead and positioned to penetrate the movement. In promising to help

achieve full domestic equality, they played a vanguard role and become the most important

organization manipulating the militant black movement.” (Pulling No Punches, October 28, 2007)

McGeorge Bundy was a Skull and Bones graduate of Yale, a protégé of Dean Acheson, and the

director of the National Security Council under President Kennedy who bears one of the heaviest

individual burdens of responsibility for unleashing the genocidal Vietnam War. Bundy had left

government in 1966, and would stay on as boss of the Ford Foundation until 1979. For much of

this time, Bundy was considered to be the informal spokesman for the US Eastern Anglophile

banking establishment, otherwise known as the financier oligarchy or ruling class. Accurate

accounts of Bundy’s activities are very hard to come by, because no foundation has been willing to

pay for an in-depth analysis of how foundation-funded social engineering is destroying this country.

Bundy was, in short, a butcher, but he was also a sophisticated ruling-class political operative.

Bundy was a slightly younger colleague of the generation of self-styled “wise men” who had

reorganized the Anglo-American world empire in the wake of World War II. Bundy was a dyed-inthe-

wool, hereditary, silver-spoon oligarch, who was conscious of representing one of the most

powerful and aggressive centers of imperialist social engineering. ‘David Halberstam was correct to

quote one of McGeorge Bundy’s colleagues as stating that Bundy “... is a very special type, an

elitist, part of a certain breed of men whose continuity is to themselves, a line to each other and not

the country.”’ (Vincent J. Salandria, “The Promotion of Domestic Discord,” an address at the

74 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

conference of the New England Branch of the Women’s International League for Peace and

Freedom, October 23, 1971)

Bundy was determined to ram through the Ford Foundation counterinsurgency strategy,

whatever the cost to New York City and its people: as one student of these events observes,

‘McGeorge Bundy was not a man given to self-doubt. (He once cut off discussion at a foundation

meeting by announcing to a group of program officers: “Look, I’m settled about this. Let’s not talk

about it any more. I may be wrong, but I’m not in doubt.”) And if he had second thoughts about the

path down which he was taking the foundation, he did not express them at the time. Indeed, his

speeches and writings in that period showed a confident determination to continue working with

black militants.’ (“McGeorge Bundy: How the Establishment’s Man Tackled America’s Problem

with Race,” Tamar Jacoby) 17

GONZALEZ: FORD FOUNDATION “REVERSE RACISM” AMONG LATINOS

Bundy started by revamping the grant priorities inside the Ford Foundation to focus on black

oppression, as well as the parallel problems of other ethnic minorities. It is important to note that

racial oppression was never defined by the Ford Foundation in broad-based economic terms, such as

the need for modern housing, new urban mass transit, top-flight medical care, high-tech jobs with

union wages, a quality college education for all ghetto youth, and other reforms which would have

necessitated a domestic Marshall Plan costing hundreds of billions of dollars. This was something

which the oligarchs had no intention of paying for. Rather, the Ford Foundation claimed that the

oppression of the black community was a matter of white racist attitudes, as reflected in institutional

arrangements which prevented black self-determination, community control, and self-esteem. In

this case, the oligarchs could claim that white blue-collar workers were the real culprits, since they

were the ones who came into the most intensive daily contact with oppressed blacks. “Bundy

reallocated Ford’s resources from education to minority rights, which in 1960 had accounted for 2.5

percent of Ford’s giving but by 1970 would soar to 40 percent.” The same methods were also

applied to Hispanics and Latinos in programs that were the precursors of the lunatic provocateur

propaganda of groups like Atzlan, which makes the absurd demand that many American states be

restored to Mexico. The only purpose of such raving delirium is to provide grist for the right-wing

xenophobic radio talk show hosts and other ideologues, who can use this transparent posturing as

“proof” in the minds of their gullible listeners of a nefarious Mexican plot to subvert the United

States.

Under Bundy’s leadership, Ford created a host of new advocacy groups, such as the Mexican-

American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (a prime mover behind bilingual education) and

the Native American Rights Fund, that still wreak havoc on public policy today. Ford’s support

for a radical Hispanic youth group in San Antonio led even liberal congressman Henry B.

Gonzalez to charge that Ford had fostered the “emergence of reverse racism in Texas.” (Heather

Mac Donald)

Congressman Gonzalez, a real fighter who later pioneered in the effort to impeach George Bush

the elder,

complained that the Ford Foundation had promoted racism among his people, Mexican-

Americans. He related how the Ford Foundation made a grant of $630,000 to the Southwest

Council for LaRaza. He said: The Ford Foundation wanted to create new leadership, and in fact

the new leaders it has created daily proclaim that existing leadership is no good ... ... the

president of MAYO, ... likes to threaten to ‘kill’ what he terms ‘gringos’ if all else fails ... ... I

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 75

must come to the sad conclusion that, rather than fostering brotherhood, the foundation has

supported the spewings of hate, and rather than creating a new political unit, it has destroyed

what little there was ...’ (Salandria)

We will see later on that the methods of the Ford Foundation in regard to the subversion and

manipulation of the American Indian movement for financier and provocation purposes are virtually

identical to the approach employed towards black and Hispanic target populations.

THE FORD FOUNDATION VS. MARTIN LUTHER KING

Martin Luther King was perceived by the Ford Foundation as a very serious threat, because of

the inclusive united-front methods by which he proposed to merge the struggles of the black

community with those of labor and the antiwar movement. The oligarchical class instinct of the

Ford Foundation therefore dictated that ultra-radical racist provocateurs be thrown into the fray who

would condemn Dr. King as a collaborationist Uncle Tom who was out of touch with younger

firebrand radicals. The general heading for these Ford Foundation provocateurs was the Black

Power movement or the pork chop cultural nationalists, who were always notoriously eager for their

foundation checks.

In a sense, in this, Ford was only following up on its own early initiative: the foundation’s Gray

Areas program, working in six inner cities in the early 1960s, had pioneered the idea of helping

the ghetto help itself. But in 1964 the War on Poverty had taken the notion one step further,

urging “maximum feasible participation” by the poor as a virtue in itself - calling on ghetto

people not just to help run local services but teaching them to organize politically so that they

could bargain with the government. As the idea gained credence, the emphasis of many antipoverty

programs shifted away from health care and education and job-training to teaching

“leadership” and in effect telling “Whitey” off. Some people at the foundation were troubled by

this new development. But they were largely unable to resist the growing pressure for any and

all kinds of participatory programs. And it wasn’t long before Ford found itself paying for street

gangs and avowed Black Power leaders. (Tamar Jacoby)

And again, the decision to fund the most incendiary lunatic agitators was a very conscious one,

since their outrageous statements could be used to fuel the backlash of the white middle class

against the militants and their demands.

FORD’S MCKISSICK, ANTI-MARTIN LUTHER KING

Thanks to the sheer power of its multi-billion-dollar endowment, the Ford Foundation was able

to create a new fad for shameless, race-baiting provocateurs on the national scene. H. Rap Brown

became infamous for his favorite slogan that “violence is as American as cherry pie.” Rap also

issued ominous threats, including his classic “If America don’t come around, we’re gonna’ burn it

down.” This was the age of “burn, baby, burn,” while reactionary Republican strategists around

Nixon and others thanked heaven for their extraordinary good fortune.

A good example of the Ford Foundation sponsorship for the most extreme black power militants

as a countergang to Martin Luther King was the grant allocation in Cleveland, Ohio:

Among the most controversial of these grants went to the Cleveland chapter of CORE

[Congress of Racial Equality]. Like even the most moderate civil-rights organizations, CORE

had been drifting leftward through the 1960s. Its integrationist national director James Farmer

76 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

had been replaced in 1966 by the younger and angrier Floyd McKissick, who along with

Carmichael was among the first proponents of Black Power. Outflanked on the left by SNCC

[Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee] and even tougher ghetto leaders advocating

violence and a separate black nation, McKissick felt under strong pressure to prove his

militancy. He began to talk of “revolution” and to forge links with black Muslims; he explicitly

repudiated the phrase “civil rights,” replacing its appeal to morality with bristling talk of racebased

“power.” Before long, his escalating racial rhetoric had driven most white members out

of CORE. By 1967, SNCC had actually expelled whites, and in July CORE deleted the word

“multiracial” from its constitution. With this, it dropped all pretense that it was pursuing

integration or the hope of progress based on racial harmony.

None of this apparently bothered the Ford Foundation, which announced two weeks later - even

as the Newark ghetto erupted in riots - that it was giving $175,000 to CORE’s Cleveland

chapter. Bundy explained at a press conference that his board had considered the grant “with

particular care.” (In fact among some 16 trustees, only Henry Ford himself had expressed any

doubts.) What’s more, said Bundy, “neither Mr. McKissick nor I suppose that this grant

requires the two of us - or our organizations - to agree on all public questions.” The foundation

had chosen Cleveland because it had been particularly hard hit by riots the past summer; Ford’s

theory was that CORE might channel the ghetto’s grievances in a more constructive way,

averting further violence in the streets. The money was earmarked for voter registration and the

training of community workers who were then to help other blacks articulate their needs.’

(Tamar Jacoby, “McGeorge Bundy: How the Establishment’s Man Tackled America’s Problem

with Race,” http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1303/ Jacoby/Jacoby.html)

Bundy the patrician had made McKissick the minority plebeian into his mercenary as part of an

incipient war on the part of the financiers against the majority of the American people in the form of

the white middle class and lower middle class.

Rational spokesmen for the black community were horrified by the kinds of reckless and

irresponsible agitation which the Ford Foundation was creating: ‘In Cleveland, ‘A black city

councilman who opposed the program said the youths were being taught “race hatred” and that they

had been heard telling younger children that “we are going to get guns and take over.” Yet Ford

continued to defend the grant: “I see it,” said a foundation consultant, “as a flowering of what Black

Power could be.” In August 1968, the program was renewed, with explicit instructions to include

local gang leaders.’ (Tamar Jacoby) The Ford Foundation was not making mistakes; it was rather

acting with diabolical effectiveness to pursue its oligarchical class agenda.

BUNDY AND MAYOR LINDSAY ATTACK THE NEW YORK SCHOOLS, 1968

At this time, the mayor of New York City was a liberal Republican bankers’ boy named John V.

Lindsay. Lindsay was expected by Wall Street to maintain full payment on the municipal bonds of

the city, no matter what the consequences might be for schools, hospitals, transportation

infrastructure and so forth. The bankruptcy of New York City which would explode in 1974-75

was now on the horizon, so it was time for the finance oligarchs to take preemptive action to divide,

disrupt, and abort any potential for a united front of New Yorkers against their outrageous and

exorbitant demands, which would later be carried out by the infamous Municipal Assistance

Corporation or Big Mac, directed by the austerity fanatic and future Obama backer Felix Rohatyn.

Bundy was able to convince Lindsay that a counterinsurgency project based on black community

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 77

control of the public schools would offer vast potential for mobilizing the black ghetto against the

largely Jewish teachers’ union, the United Federation of Teachers or UFT.

The result was a sinister triumph of foundation-funded social engineering and political

manipulation. The idea was to give the newly created community control apparatus the right to hire

and fire teachers, in flagrant violation of the legally binding contract the UFT had fought so hard to

obtain from the city only a few years before. Bundy was no doubt gleeful as he contemplated the

potential for busting a union in the short run, using duped black parents, egged on by foundationfunded

poverty pimps:

The most notorious Bundy endeavor, the school decentralization experiment in the Ocean Hill-

Brownsville section of Brooklyn, changed the course of liberalism by fracturing the black-

Jewish civil rights coalition and souring race relations in New York for years afterward. Bundy

had led a mayoral panel under John Lindsay that recommended giving “community control”

over local public school districts to parents. The panel’s report, written by a Ford staffer,

claimed that New York’s huge centralized school system was not sufficiently accountable to

minority populations. Black and Puerto Rican children could not learn or even behave, the

report maintained, unless their parents were granted “meaningful participation” in their

education. Translation: parents should hire and fire local teachers and school administrators.

(Heather Mac Donald)

Bundy launched the program with characteristic energy and dispatch. The very month he

arrived in New York, he secured the board’s formal blessing to make race the top priority. Then

he got down to studying the issue in earnest. He read everything he could get his hands on and

spared no effort to get to know “Negro leaders.” He reached out to individuals and heads of

organizations, meeting them individually and in small groups. There were Sunday lunches at his

home and dinner meetings at the elite, all-male Century Club. The Century round-tables became

a kind of an institution in themselves: a dozen or more black and white men, from government,

social work and academia, would gather on the club’s musty top floor and take turns around the

table, each speaking his piece, then removing their jackets and arguing late into the night.’

(Tamar Jacoby)

‘The Bundy Report on decentralization contains one inexcusable folly – inexcusable because ...

Bundy ... recognized it as folly ... that communities can ‘unite’ around the issue of education. In

fact, communities inevitably divide about the issue of education.’ (Salandria)

If this was folly on the part of Bundy, it was very willful folly. Later Obama would repeat the

same divisive tactics as head of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

RACIST RHODY MCCOY, FORD OPERATIVE AND ROLE MODEL FOR OBAMA

The success of the community control gambit for purposes of counterinsurgency and political

manipulation depended in large part on the personal qualities of the boss of the new experimental

community control school district. As could be expected, the Ford Foundation selected for this post

the most incendiary and outrageous racist provocateur in sight:

Ford chose as the head of its $1.4 million decentralization experiment in three Brooklyn school

districts a longtime white-hater, Rhody McCoy, who dreamed of creating an all-black school

system, right up through college, within the public schools. McCoy was a moderate, however,

compared to the people he tapped as deputies. Although the school board blocked his

appointment of a militant under indictment for conspiracy to murder, he did manage to hire Les

78 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Campbell, the radical head of the Afro-American Teachers Association, who organized his

school’s most violent students into an anti-Semitic combat force. According to education

scholar Diane Ravitch, McCoy had an understanding with racist thug Sonny Carson that

Carson’s “bodyguards” would intimidate white teachers until McCoy would diplomatically call

them off.’ (Heather Mac Donald)

Since the majority of the New York City teachers were Jewish leftists with radical New Deal

backgrounds, the most scurrilous anti-Semitic baiting was prescribed for all the Ford Foundation

operatives who wished to advance their careers:

Ford’s experimental school districts soon exploded with anti-Semitic black rage, as militants

argued that black and Puerto Rican children failed because Jewish teachers were waging

“mental genocide” on them. The day after Martin Luther King’s assassination, students at a

junior high school rampaged through the halls beating up white teachers, having been urged by

Les Campbell to “[s]end [whitey] to the graveyard” if he “taps you on the shoulder.”

…white teachers at one school found an anti-Semitic screed in their mailboxes, calling Jews

“Blood-sucking Exploiters and Murderers” and alleging that “the So-Called Liberal Jewish

Friend . . . is Really Our Enemy and He is Responsible For the Serious Educational Retardation

of Our Black Children.” McCoy refused to denounce the pamphlet or the anti-Semitism behind

it. Nor did Ford publicly denounce such tactics—or take responsibility after the fact. McGeorge

Bundy later sniffed self-righteously: “If private foundations cannot assist experiments, their

unique role will be impaired, to the detriment of American society.” But if the experiment goes

awry, the foundation can saunter off, leaving the community to pick up the pieces. (Heather

Mac Donald)

Another commentator noted, “Not the least of the political questions left dangling at the end of

the tragedy of the teachers’ strikes is the best way to make tax-exempt foundations responsible for

the consequences of their actions.” (Salandria) In reality, American society would be best served by

a policy of taxing these oligarchical parasites out of existence, and returning their ill-gotten loot to

the public treasury.

FORD OPERATIVES PROVOKE THE TEACHERS TO STRIKE

With the start of the new school year in September 1968, the great Ford Foundation experiment

in community control and social engineering exploded into chaos, a chaos which engulfed New

York City as a whole.

Everything the skeptics predicted – and more – came to pass in Ocean Hill-Brownsville, one of

the three experimental districts funded by Ford. Within weeks of the foundation’s $59,000

grant, the militant activists who made up the board in this forsaken Brooklyn ghetto found

themselves at odds with some dozen allegedly “incompetent” teachers charged by the board

with being disloyal to the decentralization experiment. (The board was largely black, the

teachers were white – and even a black judge who later investigated the dispute could find little

cause, apart from race, for the board’s dissatisfaction.) In May 1968, the offending teachers

were asked to leave their posts, and when the union rallied to their defense, the local board went

to war against the union. The union struck; the board resisted — by hiring several hundred

irregular teachers and organizing people from the ghetto to demonstrate at the schools. Then,

throughout the fall of 1968, the Ocean Hill-Brownsville schools were the scene of daily

violence. (Tamar Jacoby)

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 79

Every institution in the city quickly chose sides between the teachers union and the black

community control apparatus, splitting New York into two opposed camps. It is this kind of

ominous precedent which allows us to predict that an Obama presidency carried on with these same

foundation methods of social engineering will bring civil war in the United States as a whole much

nearer. In the fall of 1968,

a typical day brought out pickets and counter-pickets, shouting at each other across wooden

police horses, threatening each other and inciting schoolchildren. Both sides organized rallies at

City Hall; both spread hateful and largely racial innuendo. Black anti-Semitism (many of the

teachers were Jewish) vied in fury with whites’ race-charged fear and anger, and the cumulative

venom spiraled out of control. The eight schools in the Ocean Hill-Brownsville district were at

the center of the storm – and many white teachers there reported they feared for their lives. But

the striking union gave as good as it got, spreading bitterness throughout the city by shutting

down the entire school system and causing more than 1 million students to miss nearly 40 days

of the fall term. By November, when the strike was settled, integration – and race relations in

general – had been set back 20 years or more. (Tamar Jacoby)

Naomi Levine described how the Ford Foundation under McGeorge Bundy used Ocean Hill-

Brownsville to deliberately provoke a confrontation:

Why did the Ocean Hill governing board order the “termination of employment” of the nineteen

teachers and administrators in Ocean Hill in such a peremptory manner and at a time when the

State Legislature was considering various proposals that would have enacted into law many of

the Bundy report recommendations? Why did the union react so strongly? […] The conclusion

is inescapable that the Ocean Hill governing board wanted a confrontation with the Board of

Education in order to fix its powers and responsibilities once and for all, and that it created the

situation to provoke such confrontation. (Salandria, “The Promotion of Public Discord,”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t7653.html )

Significant parts of the community control experiment were rolled back, but by then the vast

damage had already been done. There was even a backlash against the high-handed and elitist

approach of the Ford Foundation, but this fell far short of wiping out this poisonous and malignant

institution:

In the end, state education authorities approved a much watered-down version of the Bundy

panel proposals. But Ford was made to pay dearly for its activist involvement. Conservative

journalists and congressmen riding the backlash of the late 1960s seized on the foundation’s

involvement in both Ocean Hill and Cleveland. These were only two small grants, a few

hundred thousand dollars of the many millions Ford had spent on race relations – for education,

voter registration, housing integration and poverty research. But that did not stop critics like

Texas congressman Wright Patman, who suggested apocalyptically on the House floor that “the

Ford Foundation [had] a grandiose design to bring vast political, economic and social changes

to the nation in the 1970s.” Thanks largely to his efforts, in 1969 Congress passed legislation

that significantly restricted all foundation giving (not just Ford’s) with excise taxes and federal

oversight. (Tamar Jacoby)

Wright Patman was that rarity, a genuine populist fighter against the Federal Reserve and the

financier elite in general.

The events around the New York City teachers’ strike of 1968 partially destroyed the

government of the City of New York in a manner from which it has never really recovered. It also

80 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

set the stage for the personal ruin of Mayor Lindsay, who had in effect turned over large parts of the

city to unelected and unaccountable Ford Foundation mindbenders. Here is an account of these

events from the point of view of City Hall which appeared in the New York Times obituary for

Mayor Lindsay in 2000:

Lindsay initiatives… were widely viewed as special concessions to black New Yorkers…

In 1968, Mr. Lindsay responded to black parents’ demands for more control and more black

teachers in their neighborhood schools by putting into effect, on an experimental basis, a school

decentralization plan in several black areas of the city, including Ocean Hill-Brownsville, in

Brooklyn.

Studies were cited that said integration was sputtering in New York, that schools had a poor

record educating black children, that it was psychologically harmful for blacks to attend schools

with mostly white teachers and administrators. The Ford Foundation, among others, had urged

the city to pursue decentralization, and the Legislature had agreed to finance the plan.

Challenging a white, largely Jewish school bureaucracy, whose authority was to be pared by

decentralization, Rhody McCoy, the administrator of Ocean Hill-Brownsville, transferred 13

teachers and 6 administrators, most of them Jewish, out of his district. In effect, he dismissed

them without pedagogic reasons, and it was said that their real offense was to oppose

decentralization.

The action was denounced as illegal by the United Federation of Teachers, which called a strike

that closed 85 percent of the city’s 900 schools for 55 days, putting a million children out of

classrooms and disrupting thousands of families. The strike’s bitterness was horrendous, with

threats of violence and diatribes laced with racism and anti-Semitism; Mr. Lindsay denounced

the slurs and ugly conduct as intolerable.

The strike ended when the state suspended Mr. McCoy and the Ocean Hill-Brownsville board

on grounds that it had violated valid union contracts by transferring the teachers and

administrators without cause. Later, the Legislature fashioned a compromise, decentralizing city

schools into 32 districts and giving locally elected boards power to run their elementary and

junior high schools, but adopting strong protections for teachers’ jobs. But the episode left a

legacy of tensions between blacks and Jews that went on for years, and Mr. Lindsay called it his

greatest regret.

The last six months of 1968 were “the worst of my public life,” Mr. Lindsay later said. The

schools were shut down, the police were engaged in a slowdown, firefighters were threatening

job actions, sanitation workers had struck for two weeks and the city was awash in garbage, and

racial and religious tensions were breaking to the surface.

The depth of feeling against Mr. Lindsay in the boroughs outside Manhattan was not widely

understood beyond New York. But it became apparent to the nation after a Feb. 9, 1969,

blizzard buried the city in 15 inches of snow. While major arteries were plowed quickly, side

streets in Queens were buried for days, and homeowners greeted the visiting mayor with boos,

jeers and curses. The scenes, captured on national television, conveyed a message that the

mayor of New York was indifferent to the middle class. (New York Times, Dec. 21, 2000)

In other words, Lindsay was widely seen as an arrogant elitist full of contempt for blue-collar

and middle-class New Yorkers; these harbingers of a possible Obama regime in Washington are too

obvious to require any further commentary.

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 81

A CLASSIC PATRICIAN-PLEBEIAN ALLIANCE

TO CRUSH THE MIDDLE CLASS

In Machiavelli’s Discourses, the perspicacious Florentine secretary points out that one of the

most dangerous political alliances that can come to dominate a state is one between the wealthy

patricians and the poorest inhabitants of the city. This seems to have been exactly what McGeorge

Bundy was aiming at, and the results were and continue to be catastrophic based on any rational

conception of American national interest. As Vincent Salandria, an intelligent lawyer, observed

several years after the dust began to settle,

A new political alliance is being forged in this country between the super-rich and the superpoor

– especially the alienated and activist members of minority groups.

The Ford Foundation, under the aggressive leadership of McGeorge Bundy, is providing the

major thrust for this power bloc ... This is a dangerous game but it doesn’t seem to worry those

members of the “Eastern Establishment” who are involved. They’re sure that no matter what

happens they’ll still be on top.

Salandria saw that the scope of the social manipulation being attempted by the Ford Foundation

was so vast that it implied nothing less than a foundation coup to impose a new oligarchical political

order in the United States:

The Ford Foundation’s support of provocateurs and revolutionaries throughout the nation is

raising numerous eyebrows. Many believe Bundy, former coordinator of intelligence for

President Kennedy, is fostering a new political alliance. Its effect, at the moment, appears to be

the destruction of the American constitutional system. The Foundation seems to be bypassing

the legally constituted federal bureaucracy, Congress and state and local governments in order

to build a movement of revolutionary proletarians.’ (Salandria, “The Promotion of Public

Discord.”)

It was clear that the teachers and the black parents were essentially fighting each other for a

share of a pie of economic concessions that was rapidly shrinking because of the incipient economic

decline and deindustrialization of the United States. These two groups would have had everything to

gain by forming an alliance to extract urgently needed concessions from the Wall Street banks. As

Salandria puts it,

I feel that McGeorge Bundy’s social engineering experiments with ethnics are designed to

cause this country to unravel under a systematic program of polarization. Where the foundations

leave off, the government agencies directly involve themselves in provocateur attempts to

splinter this nation. […] Coleman McCarthy has very wisely shown the evil and cynicism

behind the approach used by McGeorge Bundy. He points out the only legitimate function that

the intellectual should play in dealing with ethnics and racism is to: ... explain that the blacks

and white working class are actually in the same urban fix together. Instead of letting them fight

each other for useless inner-city leftovers, the intellectuals could act as a referee, creating a

black-white coalition based on hard, mutual needs, not any sentimental notions of integration.

(Salandria)

It was also very clear that the Ford Foundation continues to regard the black community as

second-class citizens who had to be maintained as wards and clients of the foundation community.

Edith Kermit Roosevelt describes this process: The operations in New York City of the Ford

Foundation typically illustrate the ruthless tactics used by the foundation’s self-described ‘elite’

82 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

in their drive for political power. One of the Ford Foundation’s goals has been to fundamentally

change the direction and control of New York City’s public-school system. City educational

institutions provide the Ford Foundation with a vehicle in their drive to control minority and

ethnic groups in urban areas through dollars distributed to key personnel who will be beholden

to them. (Salandria)

A DISASTROUS WATERSHED IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Salandria, who was a leftist, typifies the rage of Italian, Jewish, Irish, Polish, and other New

Yorkers who had witnessed the rape of the city by a group of leftist elitists in the pay of the Ford

Foundation. He reflects:

But let us not be so outraged as to lose our bearings. Yes, admittedly I have difficulty at times

in maintaining my poise. This is especially true when I hear that McGeorge Bundy, the greatnephew

of A. Lawrence Lowell, one of the murderers of my Italian brothers, Nicola Sacco and

Bartolomeo Vanzetti, through Ford Foundation grants will provide aid aimed at increasing

minority opportunities in higher education. How ironic that the Ford Foundation which has

polluted the urban school systems with its provocateur activities and thereby foreclosed

educational opportunities for so many ethnic children, seeks to parade as the ethnics’ friend by

buying off scholars of ethnic backgrounds! (Vincent J. Salandria, “The Promotion of Domestic

Discord,” an address at the conference of the New England Branch of the Women’s

International League for Peace and Freedom, October 23, 1971)

The aftermath of the strike was marked by a rapid rightward shift by many of the white ethnic

groups. In fact, the emergence of the neoconservative or neocon movement is unthinkable without

the backlash generated by the foundation operatives through these events. There were of course

many other causes, but this strike was the one which more than any other turned the nation’s largest

city into a raging political and social battlefield, where reason and reconciliation were inevitably the

first casualties. Every left-wing organization in New York City had to take a position on one side or

the other of the teachers’ strike. The Columbia University chapter of Students for a Democratic

Society split into two factions over this issue. The anarchist, proto-fascist “action faction” of

spoiled suburbanite youth under Weatherman co-founder Mark Rudd enthusiastically supported the

Ford Foundation racist provocateurs, and were eager to bust the union. Rudd was reportedly already

on the foundation payroll as a provocateur. This group quickly joined forces with the SDS national

office clique around Bernardine Dohrn, and became the terrorist-fascist Weatherman tendency.

Obama’s affinity for the Weather Underground bombers Ayers and Dohrn accordingly has deep

roots, since these figures represent the most militant and aggressive anti-working class figures from

that degraded sector of the self-styled left who chose to support and uphold the fiendish strategy of

the Ford Foundation and the US intelligence community to divide and conquer on racial lines. The

Weathermen gave precious left cover to McGeorge Bundy, and it is no accident that they find

themselves today at the side of Obama, a second-generation racist provocateur for the foundations.

The Weathermen were the most violent of those who wanted radical politics to follow the line

dictated by the oligarchical foundations. So it is not surprising to find Ayers and Dohrn as darlings

and grant recipients of the foundations today, even as they act as the core of Obama’s support

network. The pro-labor part of the Columbia SDS chapter was the part already known as the Labor

Committee, and soon expanded to other cities as the New York-Philadelphia Labor Committees,

and then as the National Caucus of Labor Committees; the present author was a member of the

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 83

Cornell University branch in Ithaca, New York, starting in September 1968. The issues of those

days are still central today, despite Obama’s attempt to push them out of public view.

The methods used by McGeorge Bundy in New York City in 1968 to exacerbate racial conflict

are essentially identical to the underlying approach of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge of the

1990s, which was organized through a consortium of foundations by the Weatherman terrorist

bomber Bill Ayers, who had suddenly become respectable as a professor of education and

foundation operative. Ayers recruited Obama to be the chairman of the board of this Annenberg

Chicago challenge, and this was unquestionably one of the biggest steps up the career ladder for our

young Messiah.

The centerpiece of the Annenberg Chicago challenge was the decentralization of the school

system through the creation of local school councils (LSCs), with the same kind of community

control and local control illusions which had been peddled by Bundy. In this case, the effect was

less explosive than in New York City, because during the 1990s a much larger percentage of the

Chicago teachers’ union was black. Nevertheless, the existence of the local school councils allowed

the Chicago banking community through its political operatives like Ayers and Obama to play

desperate black parents against the teachers union, against municipal agencies, and against the

mayor, if that were required. This is why the New York example of 1968 is so indispensable in

understanding what the goals of Obama’s operations actually were.

BUNDY DICTATES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO THE SUPREME COURT

The crowning achievement of McGeorge Bundy’s career was doubtless his success in

engineering a majority on the United States Supreme Court in favor of affirmative action programs

by which token numbers of organic black intellectuals and community leaders would be co-opted

into the elite career tracks of the prevailing finance oligarch institutions, while leaving the vast

majority of the black ghetto in a situation of worsening poverty and despair. Bundy thus scored his

last, and perhaps most significant, achievement in the realm of race relations – his role in the

Supreme Court’s Bakke decision endorsing the use of racial criteria in university admissions.

Bundy’s contribution was an article in The Atlantic making the case for affirmative action. It

was, even for Bundy, an unusually subtle and brilliant argument – but if that was all it was, it

would hardly matter today. What made it important was its impact on one particular reader:

Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, who provided a crucial fifth vote in favor of the use of

racial criteria. His short opinion on the case was so close to Bundy’s piece that it all but quoted

him. “Precisely because it is not yet ‘racially neutral’ to be black in America,” Bundy wrote, “a

racially neutral standard will not lead to equal opportunity.” Thus, he concluded. “To get past

racism, we must here take account of race.” Blackmun borrowed the phrase almost verbatim,

and it has stood for [many] years as the nation’s primary rationale for affirmative action. For

better of worse, it encoded the key idea of the late 60s - that racial progress can come only

through racial consciousness - at the center of American law. The distilled essence of Bundy’s

thinking on “the Negro question,” it remains a telling emblem of all that he did to encourage

black consciousness and race-based strategies. (Tamar Jacoby)

With the Bakke decision, which was argued under the Carter regime, we come to the world of

racial quotas, set-asides, and preferential treatment in such areas as college admissions. Far from

favoring a relaxation of racial tensions and an improved climate of national unity, these methods

have kept racial issues and racial stereotypes alive, as part of a cynical divide-and-conquer strategy.

Clinton sponsored an extensive debate about race, and today we have Obama announcing that yet

84 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

another racial conversation is needed. Instead, the view here is that what is needed is political

education based on class, poverty, exclusion, and economic decline. How can the government

determine race? Will we use light meters? Will we measure skulls, as in phrenology? Will we

demand family trees? These ideas must be rejected. What we can determine is if someone is in

poverty, and those are the people we must urgently assist into modern, productive employment.

Today, 30 years later we are in a position to see the real shape of the river as we observe the

characteristic human types which this system has created. Notable among these are Barack Hussein

Obama and Michelle Obama, who both assume the hypocritical stance of victims of racial

discrimination, when in fact the only discrimination they have known has all been in their favor,

and against the competition. Even as they amass luxury automobiles, significant wealth, mink

coats, and their legendary mansion, they must parade themselves as people who repeatedly rejected

the materialistic allure of the corporate world for a life of ascetic dedication and personal sacrifice

in the service of high principle. They also know that at least two-thirds of the black community for

which they claim to speak does not benefit, but demonstrably suffers, from this system.

Because of the obvious psychological stress between their rapacious greed, and their public pose

of altruism in the service of the black community, their troubled consciences require special care,

and it is this care which Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Otis Moss, and Dwight Hopkins have been

funded by the foundations to provide. Today Obama is running as the affirmative action candidate

for president, demanding and getting unprecedented and unheard of special treatment from the

hacks of the Democratic National Committee in the form of delegates from the state of Michigan,

where he deliberately took his own name off the ballot to avoid humiliating defeat while saving

resources. Obama demands the Democratic nomination despite the fact that Senator Clinton won

the popular vote or raw vote. All this will provide yet another lesson that affirmative action

perpetuates racial conflict, condemns the poor to a life of despair, and promotes a parasitic overclass

of race-mongers notable for their personal mediocrity and incompetence.

THE RACIST WORLD VIEW OF THE FOUNDATIONS

Let there be no confusion that racial problems in the United States have proven to be so

intractable precisely because they have been continuously exacerbated by never-ending campaigns

of foundation-funded social engineering.

Today, the full-blown liberal foundation worldview looks like this: First, white racism is the

cause of black and Hispanic social problems. In 1982, for example, Carnegie’s Alan Pifer

absurdly accused the country of tolerating a return to “legalized segregation of the races.” The

same note still sounds in Rockefeller president Peter C. Goldmark Jr.’s assertion, in his 1995

annual report, that we “urgently need . . . a national conversation about race . . . to talk with

candor about the implications of personal and institutional racism.” Second, Americans

discriminate widely on the basis not just of race but also of gender, “sexual orientation,” class,

and ethnicity. As a consequence, victim groups need financial support to fight the pettymindedness

of the majority. Third, Americans are a selfish lot. Without the creation of courtenforced

entitlement, the poor will be abused and ignored. Without continuous litigation,

government will be unresponsive to social needs. Students in foundation-funded ethnic studies

courses learn that Western culture (whose transmission is any university’s principal reason for

existence) is the source of untold evil rather than of the “rights” they so vociferously claim. […]

Liberal foundations are straining to block popular efforts to change the country’s discriminatory

racial quota system.’ (Heather Mac Donald)

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 85

The dead hand of foundation grant officers has also helped to throttle the creative arts in this

country by imposing their bankrupt and artificial notions of diversity and multiculturalism. These

can be seen for example in the world of drama, where

The large foundations now practice what Robert Brustein, director of the American Repertory

Theater, calls “coercive philanthropy,” forcing arts institutions to conform to the foundations’

vision of a multicultural paradise—one that, above all else, builds minority self-esteem.’

(Heather Mac Donald)

During the 1990s, it sometimes seemed that the counterinsurgency and social manipulation

efforts of the foundations have been so successful as to turn the United States into a political

graveyard. As Heather Mac Donald of the neocon Manhattan Institute comments,

the impulse toward the activism that over the past 30 years has led the great liberal foundations

to do much more harm than good remains overwhelming. In a pathetic statement of

aimlessness, the president of a once great foundation recently called up a former Ford poverty

fighter to ask plaintively where all the social movements had gone.’ (Heather Mac Donald)

1980s COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AND

COLLABORATIVES: OBAMA’S BACKGROUND

By the time Barack Hussein Obama arrived on the foundations scene in the mid-1980s, the

original community action/community control/local control counterinsurgency strategy of the

foundation community had somewhat evolved into community development corporations. These

CDCs were first of all a reflection of the fact that economic conditions had become much more

desperate as a result of rampant economic misrule under the Reagan regime. The trade union

movement in its traditional form had now been largely broken. The CDCs were basically apolitical,

in that they presuppose that any attempt to change the policies of the government in Washington

was hopeless, and that the most that could be attempted was to make the slide into deindustrialization

and poverty a little more comfortable. The CDCs were also corporatist in the strict

sense borrowed from the Mussolini fascist corporate state: as an organizational form, they brought

together workers, bankers, foundation bureaucrats, and government officials in an attempt to cajole

corporate interests into creating a few jobs in poverty-stricken and blighted neighborhoods.

Alternatively, they sought some minor reform such as measures to reduce asbestos or lead

poisoning in schools and public buildings.

This is precisely the strategy which Barack Hussein Obama was implementing for the Gamaliel

foundation, a satellite of the Ford Foundation, in the Altgeld neighborhood on the south side of

Chicago. Obama was therefore a second-generation poverty pimp carrying out an overtly

corporatist political plan designed to maintain the control of bankers and financiers over the city of

Chicago in just the same way that McGeorge Bundy had done this in New York.

Ford never exactly repudiated community control – or Black Power. Nor did it give up entirely

on Bundy’s paradoxical idea that the best way to spur integration was to bolster separate black

institutions and strengthen black identities. Yet Bundy and his officers quietly retreated to a far

safer form of black institution-building – investment and grants for ghetto-based enterprises

known as “community development corporations.” […] The theory is simple: Ford - and the

government and private lenders - funnel money to a local nonprofit “board” that builds up the

neighborhood and tries to attract business. These businesses create jobs, while the “corporation”

– acting as a kind of local government – provides an array of social services. In the past 20

86 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

years, Ford has spent some $200 million on what it now estimates to be 2000 CDCs. The

difference between today’s CDC and the community activism of the 1960s is small but critical:

participation is still the key word, but the emphasis is on substantive participation – community

involvement in a particular activity like rehabilitating local housing – rather than on

participation for participation’s sake. Success is hard to measure. Few of these “corporations”

could exist without outside support: yet to Ford and to the communities that host them, they

represent an important kind of “self-help.” And that, for the moment, is still the most urgent

priority – with the goal of integration still deferred indefinitely. (Tamar Jacoby)

This is the kind of thing Obama is talking about when he claims that he was trying to organize a

community to bring back jobs that had been lost when a steel mill shut down. The way to create

jobs is to organize politically and expand the New Deal policies which have been proven effective

in creating high technology jobs at union wages. Instead, Obama offered an exercise in futility

leading to no tangible gains and the burnout of most of his main cadre, which was the plan.

These community development corporations were also termed “collaboratives.” Once again, the

scale of organization is always minuscule, the dominant ideology localist in the extreme, and the

chances of any success asymptotically approaching zero. The collaboratives also include an attempt

to wipe out prevailing moral values in the target population, which reminds us of Obama’s

infamous San Francisco “Bittergate” tirade, in which he criticized rural populations facing high

unemployment for their devotion to religion, gun ownership, ethnic pride, and the resistance to

economic globalization. This is the mental world of the foundation-funded social engineer and

political manipulator in unalloyed form. One analyst notes that

The so-called “collaboratives” movement in community development is emblematic of the 30-

year-long foundation assault on the bourgeois virtues that once kept communities and families

intact. The idea behind this movement, which grows out of the failed community action programs of

the 1960s, is that a group of “community stakeholders,” assembled and funded by a foundation,

becomes a “collaborative” to develop and implement a plan for community revitalization. That plan

should be “comprehensive” and should “integrate” separate government services, favorite

foundation mantras. To the extent this means anything, it sounds innocuous enough, and sometimes

is. But as with the foundations’ choice of community groups in the 1960s, the rhetoric of

“community” and local empowerment is often profoundly hypocritical. (Heather Mac Donald)

This is the world of local, small-scale corporatism, with communitarian overtones – this is truly

Obama’s world.

“PATRONAGE TROUGHS FOR POLITICAL OPPORTUNISTS”

Here is another example of the same foundation social control strategy based on community

development corporations as it has been implemented over the past decades in Miami, Florida, in

the wake of a serious urban riot a quarter of a century ago. We quote it at length because it is

important for the reader to understand as clearly as possible what cynical manipulation lurks behind

the benevolent-sounding job description of “community organizer” in Obama’s constantly touted

resume:

If you haven’t had a couple of bloody, terrifying urban riots down the street from your

corporate headquarters, the experiences of Knight-Ridder’s CEO, James K. Batten, 53, can help

you capture the feeling, and lead you to one of our first “heroes.” After Miami’s lacerating

Liberty City riot of 1980, Batten helped mobilize the business community. Says he: “Suddenly

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 87

there was a surge of conscience among businessmen — some of it sparked by idealism and

concern for humankind, and some of it by pragmatism and self-interest. Nineteen-eighty left a

sense of foreboding about what Miami really was and where it was headed. Even the most

cynical recognized that no one wants to vacation in a war zone.” In the aftermath, officials from

a newly formed Ford Foundation-backed outfit called LISC, for Local Initiatives Support Corp.,

came to Liberty City in search of struggling community development organizations to help.

They found none, but they did discover Otis Pitts, an educated native of Liberty City with a

varied background as a military policeman, railroad cook, and Miami city cop. After his police

partner was killed by his side on a call in Liberty City, he took up youth counseling work and

was running a successful agency in Liberty City when LISC found him. LISC and Pitts set up

something called the Tacolcy Economic Development Corp., to which LISC provided money

for plans and such, plus a small loan and expertise to get additional financing for rebuilding a

looted supermarket on a pivotal corner. LISC acted as a facilitator, but the project was

essentially on Pitts’s shoulders, and it had to make commercial sense. It took off when he

persuaded Winn-Dixie Stores to come in as anchor tenant, after the original tenant refused to

return. “I learned quickly that a deal is finite,” he recalls now. “You can’t put too many risks on

one deal. As soon as something like this gets started, all the aspirations and demands of the

community come together. We were under pressure to hire minority employees, to build with

minority contractors, even to help start a minority grocery chain. Well, if you just keep piling

up the risks like that with unrealistic expectations, the deal will collapse.”

So, says Pitts, he became single-minded. “The major objective,” he says, “was to build a damn

shopping center to provide quality goods and services at competitive prices in a safe and decent

environment” — basically the economic cornerstone of any community. At that, he did bring in

mostly black subcontractors and workers. Today, Pitts’s crisply appointed offices are located in

Edison Plaza, which is just what he describes. Its success has attracted a McDonald’s to an

opposite corner, and Pitts has gone on to other victories. His most recent accomplishment is the

121-unit, eight-story Edison Towers apartment house for low-income tenants, a beautifully

appointed, exquisitely maintained private residence with excellent security smack in the middle

of Liberty City. Financed with LISC help and mostly private funds, Edison Towers is a model

of how community development corporations get the job done. The financing included a

$100,000 grant from the Ford Foundation, plus loans from the foundation, LISC, Dade County,

Southeast Bank, and Equitable, as well as a $1.6 million grant from a developer called Swire

Properties. […] LISC — basically a creation of the Ford Foundation — is far in front of the

curve on business involvement with poverty. With tax credits as a partial inducement, it has

assembled more than $200 million from some 500 corporations and foundations and leveraged

over $1 billion of direct investment in more than 500 community development corporations

across the country. In the South Bronx alone, LISC has invested upwards of $5 million in some

36 development projects. “We make it an attractive proposition for a corporation or foundation

to work through us,” says LISC President Paul S. Grogan. “They may want to attack these

problems, but they don’t have the capacity themselves to evaluate the opportunities, or to make

judgments about these community organizations. They don’t know the landscape. There’s still

sort of a stereotype of unscrupulous neighborhood organizations that don’t do anything but take

the money.” LISC officials admit that many community development corporations aren’t as

successful as Pitts’s or Rivero’s, but all of them counter the “poverty pimp” images from the

1970s. “We’re able to provide the opportunity recognition and the screening, and that’s been

crucial to us,” says Grogan. The lesson we can learn from LISC: “There’s an appetite and an

interest on everybody’s part if you can make something happen in a businesslike way, and that

88 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

says something about the directions for the future.” (John Huey, “How We Can Win the War on

Poverty,” Fortune, April 10, 1989)

“POVERTY PIMPS, POVERTY-CRATS, POVERTICIANS,

BUREAUCRAT-POLITICIANS”

The same patterns can be observed in the history of the National Puerto Rican Coalition, a group

which billed itself as having been established in 1977 to advance the interests of the Puerto Rican

community. In 1981, the NPRC received about 90% of its funding in the form of a grant from the

US Department of Housing and Urban Development. By 1991, 50% of the funding came from

corporate grants, while 30% came from foundations, with the Ford Foundation leading the pack.

The Puerto Rican community generated numbers of militant leaders, but these were so extreme that

they had little or no impact on elections. Leaders who were moderate enough to be able to run for

office posed other crippling problems: these moderate leaders

were more concerned with good government goals than with poverty issues. These leaders,

variously referred to as “bureaucrat-politicians,” “poverty-crats,” “poverticians,” and “poverty

pimps,” were intensely focused on the acquisition of power. But instead of using it to improve

the economic condition of Puerto Ricans, they invested it in shoring up their organizations. At

times they did this under the guise that the quality of life for Puerto Ricans depended on the

resources they controlled, while in effect securing “nothing more than patronage troughs for

political opportunists.”’ (José E. Cruz, “Unfulfilled Promise: Puerto Rican Politics and

Poverty,” Centro Journal XV:1 2003)

Back during the Cold War, retired spies wrote books with titles like I Led Three Lives. An

honest autobiography by a foundation operative like Obama might thus have a title along these

lines:

“I WAS A POVERTY PIMP FOR THE FOUNDATIONS”

The role of poverty pimp within the framework of foundation-funded strategies for mass

political and social manipulation, with a view to keeping the American people in a state of apathy,

fragmentation, passivity, and oppression, is a very exact characterization of what Obama did during

his years as a “community organizer.” To talk about poverty pimps is of course politically incorrect

in the extreme, but it is the only way to convey the social reality of what we are dealing with in the

case of Obama. For further background, we read in Wikipedia:

Poverty pimp or “professional poverty pimp” is a sarcastic label used to convey the opinion that

an individual or group is benefiting unduly by acting as an intermediary on behalf of the poor,

the disadvantaged or other some other “victimized” groups. Those who use this appellation

suggest that those so labeled profit unduly from the misfortune of others, and therefore do not

really wish the societal problems that they appear to work on so assiduously be eliminated

permanently, as it is not in their own interest for this to happen. The most frequent targets of

this accusation are those receiving government funding or that solicit private charity to work on

issues on behalf of various disadvantaged individuals or groups, but who never seem to be able

to show any amelioration of the problems experienced by their target population.

This self-serving cynicism, in feeding off the plight of a group of desperate dupes who are

turned into a salable political commodity, is the essence of Obama’s career.

II: Columbia University and Recruitment by Zbigniew Brzezinski 89

SOCIAL ENGINEERING THROUGH ENDLESS LITIGATION

There is one further aspect of foundation activity which should be mentioned, since it bears on

the activities of Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle Obama, and their close friend Bernardine Dohrn

in their professional careers as lawyers. Bernardine Dohrn in particular received a large grant from

the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to undertake the institutional reform of the

juvenile justice and Family Court systems in Chicago. The veteran terrorist bombthrower Dohrn

was supposed to do this through a special institute she controlled at Northwestern University. This

MacArthur grant to the aging terrorist pasionaria is coherent with another dimension of foundation

strategy, which is to pervert the courts into tools of social engineering and political manipulation.

Heather MacDonald writes:

Public interest litigation and advocacy embodies the foundations’ longstanding goal of

producing “social change” by controlling government policy. Foundations bankroll public

interest law groups that seek to establish in court rights that democratically elected legislatures

have rejected. Foundations thus help sustain judicial activism by supporting one side of the

symbiotic relationship between activist judges and social-change-seeking lawyers. Foundations

have used litigation to create and expand the iron trap of bilingual education; they have funded

the perversion of the Voting Rights Act into a costly instrument of apartheid; and they lie

behind the transformation of due-process rights into an impediment to, rather than a guarantor

of, justice. Foundation support for such socially disruptive litigation makes a mockery of the

statutory prohibition on lobbying, since foundations can effect policy changes in the courts,

under the officially approved banner of “public interest litigation,” that are every bit as dramatic

as those that could be achieved in the legislature.

ANN DUNHAM’S LONG MARCH THROUGH THE INSTITUTIONS

In the world of the foundations, the only ones who really know what they are doing are the

finance oligarchs and elitists at the top. The McGeorge Bundy types are the only ones who are

getting their money’s worth. The local people, the black parents, are dupes who are being used by

the financiers as a battering ram to maintain Wall Street’s control of society. Many of the

community control operatives and many of the middle and lower level foundation personnel are

dupes. They are often dupes who think they are fooling the foundation bosses. Obama’s mother,

Stanley Ann Dunham, the disillusioned late Marxist who went to work for the Ford Foundation, was

in all probability a person who thought that she was tricking the McGeorge Bundy types by carrying

out programs and projects which she imagined were very radical and very anti-capitalist, according

to her somewhat diluted Marxist criteria. She might have thought that she was burrowing from

within the institutions to help advance the revolution. By about 1970, there were many radicals who

embarked on this same type of long march through the institutions, as the popular phrase of the time

described it. What these radicals could not see was that their smattering of Marxism had in reality

done little more than make them into useful idiots for the aristocratic financier types, just as Marx

himself had ultimately served the British Empire.

McGeorge Bundy doubtless understood all this when he gave all that money to the raving

firebrand Floyd McKissick so as to create an artificial opposition to Dr. King. Bundy doubtless

knew that Rhody McCoy probably saw himself as a black revolutionary. It was precisely this

dimension of self-delusion that made people like this into such useful idiots. Henry Ford II

obviously lacked this level of sophistication, and was genuinely shocked at what the Ford

Foundation staff had become: a nest of failed radicals and subversives marching through the

90 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

institutions. Henry Ford II did not understand that these were exactly the people needed for

effective counter-insurgency and divide-and-conquer operations: credible left cover operatives. As

Heather MacDonald relates,

Many foundations had turned against the system that had made them possible, as Henry Ford II

recognized when he quit the Ford Foundation board in disgust in 1977. “In effect,” he wrote in

his resignation letter, “the foundation is a creature of capitalism, a statement that, I’m sure,

would be shocking to many professional staff people in the field of philanthropy. It is hard to

discern recognition of this fact in anything the foundation does. It is even more difficult to find

an understanding of this in many of the institutions, particularly the universities, that are the

beneficiaries of the foundation’s grant programs.” Did Ford exaggerate? Not according to

Robert Schrank, a Ford program officer during the 1970s and early 1980s. Schrank, a former

Communist, recalls the “secret anti-capitalist orientation” of his fellow program officers.

“People were influenced by the horror stories we Marxists had put out about the capitalist

system,” he says; “it became their guidance.”

This is the world of Obama’s mother, a weak, disillusioned late Marxist working for the Ford

Foundation. In the case of her son, the magnetic power of Marxism had declined precipitously, and

his outlook was based on race in Fanon’s sense, not class. This combination suffices to make

Obama the most radical subversive ever to seriously contend for the US presidency.

CHAPTER III: FOUNDATION-FUNDED RACISM IN

CHICAGO: JEREMIAH WRIGHT AND MICHELLE

White folks’ greed runs a world in need. – Jeremiah Wright, “The Audacity of Hope” sermon

“What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the

world.” – James Cone.

Well, my pastor is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for. I have a

number of friends who are ministers. Reverend Meeks is a close friend and colleague of mine in

the state Senate. Father Michael Pfleger is a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely. –

Obama to Cathleen Falsani, 2004.18

The Obama campaign is very fond of pointing to the great personal sacrifice made by their

candidate after leaving Harvard Law School. They stress that with his prestigious law degree,

Obama could have written his own ticket to any number of lucrative positions in Wall Street, the

corporate world, or the top law firms. But this type of propaganda ignores the fact that Obama’s

career was now being guided, fostered, assisted, and directed by the networks of the Trilateral

Commission and its banking allies. Obama was now a young man who was destined for great

things thanks to these super-rich and powerful backers. Again and again we will see the marvelous

process by which obstacles are removed from Obama’s path, and adversaries are eliminated, even

as wonderful and unprecedented opportunities open up for him as if by magic. It was clear to

Obama’s Trilateral case officers that a career solely played out in the elitist world of board rooms

and country clubs would not be sufficient to provide him with a left cover required should

candidacy for political office be part of his future, as they fully intended that it would. Therefore,

Obama had to be sheep-dipped in the world of community organizing during the 1980s to develop

his ability to manipulate and con the people he met in the streets. Now, he needed an entrée into the

left-leaning Chicago Democratic political machine, where radical black nationalists and veterans of

the Weatherman terrorist group were well represented. Obama needed to burnish his resume with

activities that would reinforce his image and credentials as a true progressive, while banishing any

suggestion that he was in fact an agent of finance capital.

‘Interestingly, after his first year in law school Obama returned in the summer of 1989 to work

as a summer associate at the prestigious Chicago law firm of Sidley & Austin. This in and of itself

is a bit unusual. Very few top tier law students work for big law firms during their first summer.

The big law firms discourage it because if you work for them in the first summer you are likely to

work for a second firm the following year and then the firms have to compete to get you. So, why

or how did Obama - at that point not yet the prominent first black president of the Harvard Law

Review (that would happen the following year) - end up at Sidley? Sidley had been longtime

outside counsel to Commonwealth Edison. The senior Sidley partner who was Comm Ed’s key

outside counsel, Howard Trienens, was a member of the board of trustees of Northwestern

alongside Tom Ayers (and Sidley partner Newton Minow, too). It turns out that Bernardine Dohrn

worked at Sidley also. She was hired there in the late 80s, because of the intervention of her fatherin-

law Tom Ayers, even though she was (and is) not a member of any state bar. Dohrn was not

admitted in either NY or Illinois because of her past jail time for refusing to testify about the

murderous 1981 Brinks robbery in which her former Weather Underground (now recast as the

“Revolutionary Armed Task Force”) “comrades,” including Kathy Boudin (biological mother of

Chesa Boudin, who was raised by Ayers and Dohrn) participated. She was finally paroled after

serving 22 years of a plea-bargained single 20-to-life sentence for her role in the robbery where a

92 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

guard was shot and killed and two police officers were killed. … Trienens recently explained his

unusual decision to hire Dohrn, who had never practiced law and had graduated from law school

(before going on her bombing spree 17 years before in 1967) to The Chicago Tribune saying, “[W]e

sometimes hire friends.” I can only speculate, but it is possible that Tom Ayers introduced Obama

to Sidley. That might have happened if Obama had met up with Bill and Tom and John Ayers prior

to attending law school when Obama’s DCP group was supporting the reform act passed in 1988.

Or it might have been Dohrn who introduced Obama to the law firm. Dohrn’s CV indicates that she

left Sidley sometime in 1988 for public interest work prior to starting a position at Northwestern

(again, hired there by some accounts because of the influence of Tom Ayers and his Sidley counsel

Howard Trienens). Obama and Dohrn would likely not have been at the firm at the same time,

although if Obama and Dohrn met before Obama left to attend Harvard Law School, she might have

discussed the firm with him and introduced him to lawyers there. My best guess, though, is that it

would have been Tom Ayers who introduced Obama to Sidley and that would have helped him get

the attention of someone like Newton Minow. And that would have come in very handy later in

Obama’s career as Kaufman suggests. (Recently I heard from Nell Minow, daughter of Newton

Minow, who tells me her sister Martha, a Harvard law professor, had Obama as a student at HLS

and that she called her father to tell him about Obama. While Nell contends on the basis of this

anecdote that her family met and supported Obama before he met Bill Ayers, she was unable to

provide me any evidence of when in fact Obama met Ayers, either Bill or Tom.) In any case the

summer of 1989 was eventful for Obama as he did meet his future wife, Michelle, there, already a

lawyer and working as a Sidley associate. Michelle was Obama’s first supervisor or mentor there.

Obama went back to Harvard in the fall of 1989 where, of course, he became president of the law

review in the spring of 1990. After graduation in 1991 he went back to Chicago to run a voter

registration campaign (which would turn out to be an important step in his career).’ (Steve

Diamond, ‘Who “sent” Obama?’ globallabor.blogspot.com, April 22, 2008)

AFTER LAW SCHOOL: BUILDING A RESUME FOR A POLITICAL CAREER

After law school, Obama returned to Chicago to work as a civil rights lawyer, joining the firm of

Miner, Barnhill & Galland, an unsavory enterprise to which we will return later… He became a

modest adjunct lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, while helping to organize a voter

registration drive during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. Abner Mikva, a five-term

congressman from Illinois who was at that time Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals

for the D.C. circuit, tried to recruit Obama as his law clerk, a position that might have been a

stepping stone to clerking on the Supreme Court, but Obama declined the offer. David B. Wilkins,

the Kirkland and Ellis professor of law, said he advised Obama in 1991 to become a Supreme Court

Clerk. “Obama knew there was honor in pursuing that post,” Wilkins said, but Obama quickly

added that it was not for him. “He said that he wanted to write a book about his life and his father,

go back to Chicago, get back into the community, and run for office there. He knew exactly what he

wanted and went about getting it done,” Wilkins said. More accurately, Obama’s Trilateral case

officers knew what the next steps for their young protégé and asset needed to be.

“He could have gone to the most opulent of law firms,” said David Axelrod, the Chicago

machine hack who is now Obama’s campaign boss gushed. “After Harvard, Obama could have

done anything he wanted.” Axelrod’s specialty has long been to help black candidates get white

votes with a utopian litany of messianic platitudes; he also got Deval Patrick elected as Governor of

Massachusetts. Obama served as an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to

1996. During this time, he says he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 93

voting rights cases. His part-time adjunct work in constitutional law at the University of Chicago

Law School lasted from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

THE MACHINE PICKS OBAMA TO LEAD PROJECT VOTE, 1992

Obama was now on his way to becoming a Chicago machine pol, but his drooling acolytes seek

to portray his choices as reflecting a self-denial worthy of a holy ascetic. One writes: “When Obama

returned to Chicago, he turned down big-money firms to take a job with a small civil rights practice,

filing housing discrimination suits on behalf of low-income residents and teaching constitutional

law on the side. He had thought he might enter politics since before he left for law school, and

eventually he did, winning a seat in the state Senate at the age of thirty-seven.”(Wallace Wood,

Rolling Stone)

Obama, clearly not acting alone, but rather helped along by his Trilateral mother ship and by the

corrupt Chicago Democratic machine, now became a leader of Illinois Project Vote, which claimed

to have registered 150,000 new voters for the 1992 election. Estimates of those registered vary;

another acolyte relates: “In 1992, he served as executive director of Illinois Project Vote! a voterregistration

drive that added an estimated 125,000 black voters to the rolls and was credited with

helping elect Carol Moseley Braun to the U.S. Senate.” (Purdum, Vanity Fair, March 2008) The

real goal of all this may have been the modernization of the traditional Cook County vote fraud

machine, which has helped so many cadavers send in absentee ballots over recent years. This

activity would become one of Obama’s main talking points in his advertisements for himself when

he was running for state senate a few years later. Obama, with characteristic megalomania, seems to

think that Project Vote was the reason Bill Clinton won the 1992 election. Therefore, when Clinton

endorsed Obama’s opponent Bobby Rush in the Perfect Master’s losing 2000 congressional race,

Obama felt betrayed, and his grudge against the Clintons came to the fore in the venom of the 2008

primaries.

OBAMA: A “VACUOUS OPPORTUNIST”

The political scientist Adolph Green of the University of Pennsylvania came into contact with

Obama around this time, and later wrote:

I’ve never been an Obama supporter. I’ve known him since the very beginning of his political

career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district in Chicago. He struck me

then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how to make white liberals like

him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political center of gravity, beneath an empty

rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal. (“Obama No,” The Progressive,

May 17, 2008) And there were other layers beneath that.

Obama published his autobiography in 1995; this was Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race

and Inheritance. During his presidential bid, he would get another wave of adoring publicity when

he won a Grammy for the audio version of this book. What kind of a person writes an

autobiography before he is 40? Surely one that is self-centered or self-absorbed, or possibly selfobsessed.

Such an autobiographer might well be a megalomaniac, with delusions of grandeur on the

scale of Nero.

94 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

JEREMIAH WRIGHT AND THE THEOLOGY OF HATE

But if Obama was a megalomaniac, we was not the only megalomaniac on the south side of

Chicago. There was also the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the central figure of an affluent

congregation that called itself the Trinity United Church of Christ. Even before going to Kenya,

Obama had come into contact with Jeremiah Wright. Obama had often been questioned about his

religious faith during his years as a community organizer. During this time Obama, who said he

“was not raised in a religious household,” was asked by pastors and church ladies, “Where do you

go to Church, young man?” (Dreams) The guess here is that he was not a Moslem during those

years, but rather an existentialist like his idol Frantz Fanon, and therefore most likely an atheist on

the model of Nietzsche and Heidegger. Obama now realized that membership in a church was a

political necessity. He chose Wright’s church not merely because it was very large, very influential,

and very wealthy, but also because it professed black liberation theology, which Obama certainly

would have known by that time to be the brand preferred by his backers in the foundation world, of

which the Ford Foundation was the flagship. Another name for Wright’s church might have been

the Foundation Church of the Counter-insurgency, since those were the doctrines that were taught

there. It was a church based on Afrocentrism, on black nationalism, and on the rejection of western

civilization. Ironically, it was also a church frequented by some of the most successful practitioners

of affirmative action, meaning the small minority of the black community who had benefited

immensely from quotas, set-asides, and racial preferences, while the majority of the black inner-city

ghetto sank deeper and deeper into poverty and despair. Indeed, Wright’s doctrines were designed

to soothe the consciences of the upwardly mobile black overclass even as they were co-opted into

the financier power structure of the city.

Obama experienced some friction with Wright at their first meeting: ‘“Some people say that the

church is too upwardly mobile.” It was in fact the richest black congregation in Chicago. Wright

shot back: “That’s a lot of bull. People who talk that mess reflect their own confusion. They’ve

bought into the whole business of class that keeps us from working together.”’ (Dreams 283)

Wright means that racial unity is everything, and socioeconomic class is nothing. With this, the

essence of Wright’s method is exposed: he is a follower of the proto-fascist German sociologist

Ludwig Gumplowicz, whose main work was Der Rassenkampf (The Racial Struggle, 1909).

Gumplowicz was a product of the decaying Austro-Hungarian Empire, whose nationalities policy is

one of the models for the Ford Foundation’s current doctrines of multi-culturalism. Gumplowicz

taught that the main clash in human society was the racial one, and not class struggle – not Plato’s

authentic class struggle, and not Marx’s fake version either. It is a tune repeated by many a

reactionary, irrationalist, and obscurantist.

Here are some impressions of Trinity United and of Wright personally: ‘The Trinity United

Church of Christ, the church that Barack Obama attends in Chicago, is at once vast and

unprepossessing, a big structure a couple of blocks from the projects, in the long open sore of a

ghetto on the city’s far South Side. The church is a leftover vision from the Sixties of what a black

nationalist future might look like. There’s the testifying fervor of the black church, the Afrocentric

Bible readings, even the odd dashiki. And there is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a sprawling, profane

bear of a preacher, a kind of black ministerial institution, with his own radio shows and guest

preaching gigs across the country. Wright takes the pulpit here one Sunday…. This is as openly

radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much

Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama’s life, or his

politics. The senator “affirmed” his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a “sounding

board” to “make sure I’m not losing myself in the hype and hoopla.” Both the title of Obama’s

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 95

second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic

National Convention in 2004 come from Wright’s sermons. “If you want to understand where

Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from,” says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left,

“just look at Jeremiah Wright.”’ (Wallace Wood, Rolling Stone) Indeed.

JEREMIAH WRIGHT’S GREATEST HITS

Wright was a racist provocateur operating in the orbit of the Ford Foundation and other counterinsurgency

institutions. He was a guardian of a social order dominated by financiers and bankers.

But he did this with radical black nationalist or Afrocentric cover, which guaranteed support from

guilt-ridden white liberals. Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. became the Pastor of Trinity United

Church of Christ (TUCC) on March 1, 1972. The church motto is “Unashamedly Black and

Unapologetically Christian,” which was a phrase coined by his predecessor, the Reverend Dr.

Reuben Sheares, and was officially adopted by Wright. Trinity goes on to say: “Our roots in the

Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people,

and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization…. “Trinity has

a non-negotiable commitment to Africa, is committed to the historical education of African people

in diaspora and committed to liberation, restoration, and economic parity.” Some have seen here a

claim to Afrocentric racial superiority, which could only be grounded in irrationalist mysticism.

Trinity United Church of Christ claims to be founded upon the “Black Value System,” written

by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. Trinity supports

the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics, Trinity says, must be

taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered.

They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God

2. Commitment to the Black Community

3. Commitment to the Black Family

4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education

5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence

6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic

7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect

8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”

9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black

Community

10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and

Supporting Black Institutions

11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System

12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

Wright was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He did not attend the largely black high school

in his neighborhood, but instead took an exam which he passed to be able to attend an elite citywide

high school which was largely white. This is an instance of Wright’s failure to practice the

racial solidarity which he preaches when his own advantage is concretely at stake. Morton A. Klein,

the president of the Zionist Organization of America, happened to have attended the same public

96 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

high school from which Wright graduated. Klein noted that Wright had chosen a highly competitive

college prep program in a school which was largely white:

It happens that, as a Philadelphian, I attended Central High School – the same public school

Jeremiah Wright attended from 1955 to 1959. He could have gone to an integrated

neighborhood school, but he chose to go to Central, a virtually all-white school. Central is the

second-oldest public high school in the country, which attracts the most serious academic

students in the city. The school then was about 80 percent Jewish and 95 percent white. The

African-American students, like all the others, were there on merit. Generally speaking, we

came from lower/middle class backgrounds. Many of our parents had not received a formal

education, and we tended to live in row houses.” (Morton A. Klein, “Obama’s pastor: Product

of privilege, not poverty,” World Net Daily, March 25, 2008)

Wright’s choice of an affluent white neighborhood for his retirement was a clear violation of the

ban on middle class values contained in his church program. But it did represent a return to

Wright’s origins.

After high school, Wright entered Virginia Union University. After three and a half years at

Virginia Union, Pastor Wright left and entered the United States Marine Corps. He transferred from

the USMC into the United States Navy where he served as a cardiopulmonary technician, assisting

President Lyndon B. Johnson during the heart attack he suffered in office. After six years in the

service, Pastor Wright transferred to Howard University where he completed his undergraduate

studies and received his first Master’s Degree. His second Master’s Degree was from the University

of Chicago Divinity School. His Doctorate was received from the United Theological Seminary, the

noted smithy of synthetic religions near Columbia on Morningside Heights, under Dr. Samuel

DeWitt Proctor. In addition to Pastor Wright’s four earned degrees, he has been the recipient of

eight honorary doctorates.

Some vintage Wright: “Fact number one: We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in

college,” he intones. “Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this

country is still run! We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the

training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and

believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people.

. . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means! We are selfish, self-centered

egotists who are arrogant and ignorant and betray our church and do not try to make the kingdom

that Jesus talked about a reality. And — and — and in light of these 10 facts, God has got to be sick

of this s**t” Some reports include an additional peroration, in the classical style recommended by

Cicero and Quintilian: “And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS S**T!”

(Wallace Wood, Rolling Stone, Kyle-Anne Shiver)

When some authentic representatives of the historical black church were allowed on television to

respond to Wright’s claims that he represented them, at least one of them offered the criticism that

many black families would not want to stay in a church where “the pastor was cussing.” Wright did

more: in one scene from his tapes, he began ranting that “Some argue that blacks should vote for

Clinton “because her husband was good to us,” he continued. “That’s not true,” he thundered. “He

did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky.” He turned around and humped his own

altar to emphasize that Bill Clinton had been “riding dirty” with Miss Lewinsky.

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 97

OBAMA HELPED FUND WRIGHT’S MICROPHONE

Obama did not just listen to this tripe; he financed it and made it possible financially. In 2006,

the Obamas gave $22,500 to Wright’s church, and this represented the vast majority of their

charitable contributions. Wright’s church was foundation-funded: for example, in 2001 the Woods

Fund, where Obama was a board member, awarded a $6,000 grant to Trinity United. They were

paying for an agitational machine disguised as a church. Wright, for his part, needed the money to

buy his new Porsche. Worldly asceticism was not a part of the Protestant ethic as interpreted by

Wright. He rejected middleclassness in favor of upperclassness, or, more simply, elitism.

Obama has described Wright as his spiritual mentor and his sounding board. A key phrase from

one of Wright’s sermons is the “audacity of hope,” which Obama has affixed as the title of his

compendium of observations on his own presidential campaign. Wright is a great admirer of Louis

Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, and traveled with Farrakhan to visit with Libyan leader Muammar

Qaddafi. Farrakhan has gotten his picture on the cover of Wright’s parish magazine several times,

sometimes in the company of Obama. Wright’s church gave Farrakhan the “Dr. Jeremiah A.

Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer” Award at the 2007 Trumpet Gala at the United

Church of Christ. According to some reports, Wright himself was for a time a member of

Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen noted that the Trinity United house organ had once

named Louis Farrakhan as its person of the year, praising the Nation of Islam leader. Cohen called

on Obama to denounce such praise of Farrakhan, known for statements deemed anti-Semitic. In his

January 15, 2008 Washington Post column, Richard Cohen wrote: “Every year, [Trumpet] makes

awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to

a man it said ‘truly epitomized greatness.’ That man is Louis Farrakhan.”

Farrakhan was a hero to some, but for others who looked at him from the left, he fell far short of

what was needed. There was for example Farrakhan’s address to the Million Man March of 1995,

when titanic efforts had been marshaled by ordinary black men to demonstrate for the survival of

the black family. Farrakhan was the main speaker. He had no legislative program to outline to

mobilize and sustain the efforts of the black men who had come so far at such expense to hear him.

Instead, he launched into a raving tirade about numerology, babbling about the number of steps

leading to various buildings in Washington, or their height as measured in feet. It was an appalling

performance. He finished up with a kind of pledge by those present, but there was no mention of a

political party or something concrete to express so much need and so much energy. Not

surprisingly, the momentum generated by the Million Man March quickly dissipated. Farrakhan had

proven once and for all that he was no political leader. He had not been able to point to the next

step, to the next link in the chain of meaningful political action.

Many wondered what Farrakhan was about after all, with his idiotic and self-destructive anti-

Semitic outbursts. There had been a time after that fabled trip to Libya when he had seemed to

suggest that he had become a kind of paymaster for Qaddafi. Some claimed that he had had a role in

the assassination of Malcolm X, who had been a rival of sorts to him for the NOI succession. Did

Farrakhan have connections to the US intelligence community? If he did, then everything would

begin to fall into place, including his indirect association to Obama. Farrakhan has endorsed Obama

for the presidency, saying that the Illinois senator “is the hope of the entire world, that America will

change and be made better.” It was Farrakhan who had been quoted saying, “White people are

potential humans — they haven’t evolved yet.” Was Farrakhan a provocateur for the FBI? When

the spotlight was trained on this matter, Obama has run away in the other direction.

98 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

In the week ending March 14, 2008, the American public came to know the intemperate

rhetorical outbursts of this Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of the Trinity United Church of

Christ which Obama and his family had by then been attending for some 20 years. It turned out that

videotapes and audiotapes of Reverend Wright’s incendiary sermons had long been available for

public sale, but that the controlled corporate media, had pooh-poohed any attempt to dig beneath

their favorite candidate’s messianic-utopian veneer, had not paid any attention to this mass of

damning material until the Obama candidacy had begun to falter after his loss of the Ohio and

Texas primaries. Until this time, only a limited number of taped sermons had been presented on

television, although some had been widely available on the Internet. During the critical week in

question, Brian Ross of ABC news was one of the first to present extensive excerpts from Reverend

Wright’s ranting performances. He was quickly followed by Hannity, O’Reilly, and Greta Van

Susteren, and then by CNN, followed by the diehard Obama hysterics at MSNBC. On March 14

2008, a media firestorm swirled around the increasingly daemonic figure of Reverend Jeremiah

Wright, prompting Obama to drop the ranting Reverend from a committee of spiritual advisers to

his campaign.

WRIGHT: “GOD DAMN AMERICA”

The culmination of Wright’s doctrine was this: “The government gives them the drugs, builds

bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no,

God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people.” “God damn America for

treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God

and she is supreme.” (2003) “God damn Wall Street” would have been above reproach. “God damn

Bush” would have gotten applause on any street. “God damn the CIA” would have been warmly

received in many quarters. But “God damn America,” is the subjunctive form of a wish that God

visit evil upon the American people, and that is quite another matter. “God damn” is considered a

form of blasphemy since it amounts to giving orders to God, telling God to hate. It shows that

Wright was not a Christian at all, but a purveyor of hate. If Obama says he got to Christ through

Wright, then he never got there, since Wright’s religion was a satanic cover story for Mammon and

Pluto. In this case, Obama never got to Christianity at all, and may well be a Satanist himself.

WRIGHT’S LEFT CIA BLOWBACK THEORY OF 9/11

Wright raved on and on: “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more

than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported

state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because

the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s

chickens are coming home to roost.” (Sept. 16, 2001)19

This is the CIA’s favorite blowback theory, most famously embraced by the ex-Weatherman

bomb expert and sometime professor at the University of Colorado Ward Churchill. Churchill

called the 9/11 victims “little Eichmanns,” and argued that those who did not embrace the official

myth of 9/11 complete with the 19 hijackers, Mohammed Atta, Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh

Mohammed, and Ramzi Binalshib were in fact racists who were seeking to deny that the Arabs

were after all capable of great things. Ward Churchill taught the pseudo-revolutionary provocateur

group the Weathermen how to make bombs and fire weapons, according to a Fox News report

citing the Jan. 18, 1987 issue of the Denver Post. The revelation is among many reported since

Churchill prompted a national furor with publicity over an essay he wrote entitled “Some People

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 99

Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.” (“9-11 professor trained terrorists: Radical group

Weathermen assisted by Ward Churchill, World Net Daily, February 11, 2005) The parallels to

Wright are evident. An entire left CIA, foundation-funded domestic intelligence and

counterinsurgency network was primed to spout the “chickens coming home to roost” line right

after 9/11.

This blowback theory had broad appeal to morally insane leftists who wanted to see 9/11 as the

just punishment and retribution for US imperialist crimes. The problem was that 9/11 had been a

cynical provocation staged and manufactured by the CIA and the rest of the US intelligence

community to start a unilateral version of the war of civilizations.20 Blowback was the most

insidious defense of the official 9/11 story. In honor of his role, blowback advocate Ward Churchill

had been awarded the Arlen Spector Award for 2005. Named in honor of the originator of the

“magic bullet” theory of the Kennedy assassination, the Arlen Spector Award goes yearly to the

person who offers the most imaginative and demagogic defense of an official big lie. This jest had

been mine, but the point was no jest.

The newspaper of record, as usual, attempts to obfuscate this issue: ‘On that Sunday after the

terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright also said the attacks were a consequence of violent American

policies. Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that “people of color had not gone

away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry

way of ignoring Black concerns.” “The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification,”

Obama said in a recent interview. He was not at Trinity the day Mr. Wright delivered his remarks

shortly after the attacks, Mr. Obama said, but “it sounds like he was trying to be provocative. …

Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern

with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr.

Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the

context of social justice and inequality.”’ (“A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith,”

New York Times, April 30, 2007)

Like Wright, Deval Patrick, and Weatherman veteran Ward Churchill, Obama embraced the

blowback theory of 9/11. Here are Obama’s remarks right after 9/11, which are worth citing

because they show his complete alignment with the left wing of the US intelligence establishment:

Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also

hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate

lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at

our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must

be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their

organizations of destruction. We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of

understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives

from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or

connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness

to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it

unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand

of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though,

it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair. We will have

to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of

innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination

directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to

100 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of

embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa,

Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.21

This is terrorism as a purely spontaneous sociological phenomenon, the direct reaction to

economic issues, without the intervention of intelligence agencies. I have provided an exhaustive

refutation of this point of view in my 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA (2005 ff.)

WRIGHT: “I’M A BAD MAMMA JAMMA!”

Even the left liberals at the New Yorker were uneasy with some of Wright’s more incendiary

positions, no doubt because they represented a threat that the Perfect Master might be unmasked:

Wright, who drives a Porsche and references Bernie Mac and Terry McMillan in his unorthodox

sermons (“Take what God gave you and say, ‘In your face, mediocrity, I’m a bad mamma

jamma!’”)…. Wright preached. Wright espouses a theology that seeks to reconcile African-

American Christianity with, as he has written, “the raw data of our racist existence in this strange

land.” The historical accuracy of that claim is incontestable. But his message is more

confrontational than may be palatable to some white voters. In his book Africans Who Shaped Our

Faith —an extended refutation of the Western Christianity that gave rise to “the European Jesus . . .

the blesser of the slave trade, the defender of racism and apartheid”—he says, “In this country,

racism is as natural as motherhood, apple pie, and the fourth of July. Many black people have been

deluded into thinking that our BMWs, Lexuses, Porsches, Benzes, titles, heavily mortgaged condos

and living environments can influence people who are fundamentally immoral.” In portraying

America as “a Eurocentric wasteland of lily-white lies and outright distortions,” Wright

promulgates a theory of congenital separatism that is deeply at odds with Obama’s professed belief

in the possibilities of unity and change. (New Yorker, March 11, 2008)

Obama had warned Wright to stay away from his pseudo-Lincolnesque announcement of his

campaign in early 2007, but that had not been enough for the egomaniac Wright, it seemed. Asked

about the incident almost a year before the Wright scandal blew up in grand style, the Obama

campaign stated: ‘“Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church.” In March 2007, Wright

commented in an interview that his own family and some close associates were angry about the

canceled address, for which they blamed Obama’s campaign advisers, but that the situation was

“not irreparable.” The haughty and vindictive Wright added menacingly: “Several things need to

happen to fix it.” When asked if he and Mr. Wright had settled this quarrel, Obama said: “Those are

conversations between me and my pastor.” “If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to

publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally,

and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”’ (“A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for

Faith,” New York Times, April 30, 2007)

Wright, in his moments of lucidity, was aware of himself as a violently controversial figure.

Wright told The New York Times in a March 6, 2007 interview: “When his [Obama’s] enemies find

out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli,” with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to visit Libyan

leader Muammar Qaddafi, “a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”

Note that for Wright, all political categories are racial and racist categories. Nevertheless, in a

March 2008 campaign appearance, Sen. Obama said, “I don’t think my church is actually

particularly controversial.” This argued for very poor judgment indeed, since Wright was about to

become a huge obstacle to Obama’s presidential power grab.

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 101

The ranting sermons of Reverend Jeremiah Wright established beyond doubt that he is a

purveyor of racial hatred, and that this hatemongering was a constant, habitual, and structural

feature of his pulpit oratory. If Obama were as conciliatory and irenic as he claims to be, why does

he associate with such a person? Why not quit this church and find another one more consonant

with traditional Christianity? Instead, we find that Reverend Jeremiah Wright officiated at Obama’s

wedding, at the christenings of his two daughters, and that the title of Obama’s second book, The

Audacity of Hope, the book we have referred to as the postmodern Mein Kampf, is a direct citation

from one of Reverend Wright’s incendiary sermons.

BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY: THE CONE-HEADS

In a spring 2007 television interview with Hannity, Reverend Wright stated that he is an

exponent of Black liberation theology, with special reference to the works of theologians like James

Cone and Dwight Hopkins. These writers, Reverend Wright argued, are the sources of the black

and Afrocentric Christianity which is taught in his church. James Cone is a professor at the Union

Theological Seminary, located near Columbia University in New York City. Union Theological

Seminary is for all practical purposes a factory for new and improved synthetic religions, structured

according to the needs of the oligarchical financier elite to manipulate, dominate, and control

various target populations.

Cone, the founder of black liberation theology, concocted a synthetic religion combining porkchop

black nationalism, third-world pseudo-Marxism, and primitive Christianity. He describes his

own handiwork as “a theology which confronts white society as the racist anti-Christ.” In a war

against “white values,” black pastors, like Wright, must reject “white seminaries with their middleclass

white ideas about God, Christ and the church.” (Rich Lowry, “The Real Rev. Wright,”

realclearpolitics.com, April 29, 2008) “What I write is urged out of my blood,” writes Cone. A

religion of blood means a religion of blood consciousness and race, taking us back to National

Socialism. We are close to Fichte’s Volksgeist and Mazzini’s idea that the races are the real actors

of history. We are also close to Michelle Obama’s advice to her husband to be visceral, to feel and

not to think, which will be discussed below.

Cone gives up any notion of supernatural religion and makes religion derive from a contingent

historical experience when he writes: “To put it simply, Black Theology knows no authority more

binding than the experience of oppression itself. This alone must be the ultimate authority in

religious matters.” Whites are presented as “madmen sick with their own self-concept.” Cone lays

particular stress on his contention that Jesus Christ was black: “The ‘raceless’ American Christ has

a light skin, wavy brown hair, and sometimes - wonder of wonders - blue eyes. For whites to find

him with big lips and kinky hair is as offensive as it was for the Pharisees to find him partying with

tax-collectors. But whether whites want to hear it or not, Christ is black, baby, with all of the

features which are so detestable to white society.” (In Christianity, by contrast, God is a spirit, and

the issue of skin color does not arise.) In Cone’s theology, eternal salvation is equated with black

people rising up against their white oppressors. As a coherent gnostic, Cone re-interprets the notions

of eternity and paradise as rewards that can and should be obtained in this world.

CONE: “IF GOD IS NOT FOR US AND AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE,

THEN HE IS A MURDERER”

Cone went much further, attempting to transform Christ from the universal living God to a kind

of totemic or animistic tribal god suitable to lead a raiding party in a race war:

102 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black

community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had

better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black

community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the

destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power,

which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at

their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” And

again: “In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted

of society, and against oppressors ... Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation

and against the white oppressors, or he is not.” (See William R. Jones, “Divine Racism: The

Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology,” in African-American Religious

Thought: An Anthology, ed. Cornel West and Eddie Glaube [Westminster John Knox Press];

cited by Spengler, “The peculiar theology of black liberation,” Asia Times).

Christianity allows and indeed requires class distinctions, with a preferential bias in favor of the

poor and the destitute, as expressed in the imperative to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the

homeless, visit the sick and prisoners, and bury the dead. It is easier for a camel to pass through the

eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. But the apostles are commanded

to preach the gospel to all nations, without exception, and St. Paul is adamant that there can be no

difference between Jew and Greek, Jew and Gentile, Syrian, or Samaritan. What Cone is preaching

here is a new synthetic religion which can only be described as satanic, since it is most explicitly

based on hatred. If Obama claims that he reached Christianity thanks to Reverend Wright, we can

only conclude that he never became a Christian, since as a disciple of Cone, Wright himself could

never be classified as a Christian. What Cone has elaborated is a religion of hatred which is the

opposite of Christianity.

DISTURBING PRECEDENTS FOR ETHNIC RELIGION

Cone’s work calls to mind the outlook of Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the racist and antisemitic

friend of the German Emperor William II and later a supporter of Hitler. Chamberlain was

an Englishman who chose to become a German; he was a relative of Sir Neville Chamberlain, who

appeased Hitler at Munich in an attempt to turn him east against Russia. Chamberlain was one of

only four persons whom the National Socialists acknowledged as their ideological forebears: the

three others were the composer Richard Wagner, the anti-semite Lagarde, and the philodoxer

Nietzsche; Chamberlain was the only one who did not come from the German-speaking area of

central Europe. Chamberlain’s argument was that the Germanic master race was the bearer and

originator of all civilization and culture and admirable in all things save one: it did not have its own

ethnic religion, and was saddled with an alien Christianity, a religion which Chamberlain rejected

for racist reasons since so many of the main figures were Jews, and also because of doctrines like

charity, which were incompatible with the way of the Germanic warrior. Chamberlain called for the

creation of a specifically and exclusively Germanic ethnic religion, he called this “eine arteignene

Religion” or “eine artmäßige Religion.”

Cone’s work can be most clearly understood if we view him as a new Houston Stewart

Chamberlain, attempting to create a new and synthetic ethnic religion in the service of the

oligarchical foundation community, with the same kind of reactionary and anti-human intent which

animated Chamberlain. Cone’s talk of killing God also puts him in a class with another proto-Nazi,

Nietzsche. In modern America, the intent of all this is a transparent strategy of divide and conquer,

splitting the population into more or less fictitious subject nationalities, each with its own ethnic

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 103

idol, thus guaranteeing that no united front against the preponderance of the financiers can ever

emerge.

What is the extent of Cone’s influence? Apologists for Obama have argued that two-thirds of

black preachers in America sound like Wright, but empirical studies suggest that the real figure is

far less, perhaps one-third at the very most. C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence H. Mamiya carried out a

ten-year statistical study of the black church in America, published as The Black Church in the

African-American Experience (1990). One of the questions asked in this study dealt with black

liberation theology: “In our urban questionnaire we asked the pastors of 1,531 urban churches,

‘Have you been influenced by any of the authors and thinkers of black liberation theology?’“ It

turned out that only 34.9 percent of urban black clergy said they had been influenced by black

liberation theologians, as opposed to 65.1 percent who said they had not. Lincoln and Mamiya

found a class divide in this regard, with more affluent and educated congregations more likely to be

influenced by black liberation theology. Pastors with a high school and lower educational

background said that they were minimally influenced by liberation theology, while those with a

college education had the most positive views of the movement. The majority of the less educated

pastors had neither heard of the movement nor of the names of theologians associated with it.

Among clergy familiar with the movement, James Cone had the highest name recognition. (Ron

Rhodes, “Black Theology, Black Power, and the Black Experience”) The implication is clear: black

liberation theology is in fact an ideology of the black overclass.

FORD OPERATIVES AT TRINITY UNITED

Dwight N. Hopkins, the other named mentioned by Wright, is a professor of theology at the

University of Chicago and an ordained American Baptist minister. He teaches at the Rockefellerfunded,

right-wing elitist University of Chicago, and also teaches at Obama’s Trinity United Church

of Christ, where his students expect to be treated as his university students. During the Reverend

Wright crisis of the Obama campaign, Hopkins acted more and more as a spokesman for Wright’s

church in numerous cable television interviews. Hopkins is the “Communications Coordinator for

the International Association of Black Religions and Spiritualities, a Ford Foundation sponsored

global project,” as we learn from the Trinity United web site. Hopkins is thus an operative of the

notorious Ford Foundation, a flagship institution of the US financier oligarchy. He is also an official

of Obama’s church, and the dominant figure of Wright’s Center for African Biblical Studies.

Wright says of Hopkins: “His work covers what has transpired over the past 30 years in the area of

black theology. The developments he covers are a ‘must’ for Generation X-ers” – including,

therefore, Obama. Hopkins’ standpoint is that of a “theological interpretation of black power.” It is

the attempt to project the privileges and psychological defenses of the black overclass into the

heaven of theology, and must thus be classed as a blasphemous abuse of religion for venal and

demagogic goals.

In his notorious performance at the National Press Club in April 2008, Wright attempted to

camouflage the fact of a new synthetic religion entirely separate from Christianity behind a smoke

screen of relativism. Wright’s relativism means that all alternatives are axiomatically equal, no

matter what their quality or what their consequences for human survival might be. Wright’s

universe recalls Hegel’s description of Schelling in the preface to his Phenomenology of Mind — a

night in which everything looks the same: “The prophetic theology of the black church in our day is

preached to set African-Americans and all other Americans free from the misconceived notion that

different means deficient. Being different does not mean one is deficient. It simply means one is

different, like snowflakes, like the diversity that God loves. Black music is different from European

104 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

and European music. It is not deficient. It is just different. Black worship is different from European

and European-American worship. It is not deficient. It is just different. Black preaching is different

from European and European-American preaching. It is not deficient. It is just different. It is not

bombastic. It is not controversial. It’s different.”

Using this boundless relativism, Wright can level good and evil, charity and hatred. He can and

did mock the “garlic-nosed” Italians, the Irish, and the music of Georg Friedrich Handel. Wright

was a great hater of Europe. As well as being the purveyor of a wholly fantastic and utopian vision

of Africa and its history, Wright was an obscurantist of the first magnitude. Obama alleged that he

had come to Christianity through Wright, but it was clear that Wright was light years distant from

Christianity. Wright was a worshipper of Ford Foundation grants, a racist provocateur and merchant

of hatred working to preserve Wall Street’s domination over American society. The only religion

that Obama could have learned at Wright’s knee was hate-based Satanism, concocted in the service

of Mammon, Pluto, and all the other gods of wealth. To make matters worse, there is no proof that

Obama was ever baptized. Chicago-based journalist, broadcaster and critic Andy Martin, when

asked about Obama’s baptism, wrote, “I have never been able to obtain any evidence that he was

baptized, although I asked for those records.”

A body of doctrine which claims to be a religion, as distinct from a political ideology, must deal

with an eternal truth growing out of the ontological situation of God and humanity in the world.

Religion is not the distillation of anybody’s specific predicament or historical experience. Cone

wants to celebrate the triumph of postmodern “cultures” over any notions of what is universal and

eternal. God is either an eternal spirit with no color at all, or is nothing. There cannot be a white god

nor a black god nor a Russian god nor a Chinese god – there can be only one universal God, unless

we wish to regress to polytheism or totemism. As soon as we have a separate god for every skin

color, religion is out the window, replaced by a kind of deus ex machina useful mainly for

propaganda purposes. If we have a black god who wants to rise up against whites, we should not be

surprised if another god appears who recommends white supremacy, soon followed by another god

who supports Serbia against Albania, still another one who is mainly concerned with global

warming, and yet another one who wants more tax cuts for the rich. God is not a figment of a

political perspective nor of a strategy for health and wealth. But Cone’s god appears to be precisely

something of this order – the embodiment of an ideology of accumulation of wealth under

conditions of affirmative action, in late US-UK imperialism.

FORD FOUNDATION THEOLOGY

Where does this pseudo-theology come from? Since the 1960s, the Ford Foundation has been a

leading agency for funding black cultural nationalism and separatism (sometimes referred to as

“pork chop cultural nationalism”) as a strategy for divide-and-conquer counterinsurgency in the

black ghetto and among economically disadvantaged inner-city populations more generally. In

these efforts, the watchwords of the Ford Foundation have been community control, local control,

and self-management. The goal is always to fragment, divide, and Balkanize the oppressed subject

populations according to every conceivable fault line of ethnicity, color, religion, national origin,

sexual preference, age, gender, and any other splinter factor that the social engineers can devise. In

this way, a general political challenge to the rule of the financiers will never emerge.

Martin Luther King, by contrast, was opposed to racial quotas during his entire career, and this

view was shared by both Robert Kennedy and by the black civil rights advocate Bayard Rustin.

Rustin wrote that “any preferential approach postulated on racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual lines

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 105

will only disrupt a multicultural society and lead to backlash. However, special treatment can be

provided to those who have been exploited or denied opportunities if solutions are predicated on

class lines, precisely because all religious, ethnic, and religious groups have a depressed class who

would benefit.” The class-based strategy is one that would tend to unite all of the present

squabbling and contending oppressed groupings of American society in a united front against their

common oppressor, as in the Wall Street financier class and their minions. The Ford Foundation,

the left CIA, and the domestic counterinsurgency apparatus have always been mobilized to head off

precisely this possibility. Racial quotas were introduced by President Richard Nixon and his

secretary of labor George Schultz, who used a quota system called the Philadelphia plan to pit black

unemployed against white construction workers, to the detriment of both and to the greater glory of

the bosses. Support for racial quotas came from such black activists as Ford Foundation operative

Floyd McKissick of the Congress of Racial Equality, CIA provocateur Stokely Carmichael of the

Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the famous FBI provocateur H. Rap Brown, and

James Forman. All of these figures performed the precious service of giving black nationalist

radical and left cover to what was inherently a divide-and-conquer strategy invented by the ruling

class for the purpose of playing one group in the population off against another. Racial preferences

and quotas boiled down to a system of somewhat enhanced tokenism, having as an additional

purpose the recruitment of the most active and intelligent elements of the oppressed groups as

privileged tools of the ruling class, whose characteristic outlook and methods they assimilate and

internalize to a large degree as their own.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IMPOSED BY NIXON AND SHULTZ

Most left liberals naively assume that affirmative action is the only conceivable approach to the

race problem, despite the fact that it has failed over 40 years to improve the poverty of the black

inner city. Most people do not know that affirmative action was born as a counterinsurgency

strategy devised by none other than Richard Milhous Nixon and his retainers, most notably the

current boss of the neocon establishment, George Shultz. Here are some considerations which I

advanced a decade ago in my Surviving the Cataclysm.

Michael Lind correctly notes that post-1968 multiculturalism represents a demagogic and

successful form of tokenism applied as a counterinsurgency strategy; for Lind, “identity politics

is merely America’s version of the oldest oligarchic trick in the book: divide and rule.” (Lind,

The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution, 141)

The atrophy of class analysis in modern America is partly the fault of the 1960s New Left, which

was much more interested in race and gender than in class. The New Left was interested in

community control for the black community, which happened to be the main domestic

counterinsurgency tactic of the Sargent Shriver Office of Economic Opportunity and the Ford

Foundation. This is the classic divide-and-conquer approach to ethnic groups which has been

assumed by imperial ruling classes from time immemorial, from the Ottoman milliyet-bachi (or

ethnark) system to the British Raj in India to the Soviet autonomous republics set up by Stalin.

MARSHALL PLAN FOR THE CITIES, OR RACIAL QUOTAS?

The basic problems of black ghetto victims by 1970 (or 1997) were in reality largely economic —

jobs, wages, health care, education, mass transit, housing, and related issues. The same was true of

the black rural poor. To even begin to address these problems would have required a domestic

Marshall Plan, a second New Deal on a vast scale. The post-1957 stagnation of productive

106 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

employment and industrial investment would have had to be reversed. Such an approach would

necessarily have treated the disadvantaged layers of all ethnic groups, and would have required

very substantial investments and other expenditures. The US financial elite, fixated on its new

runaway shop opportunities in the globaloney economy, was not interested in such a domestic

Marshall Plan. The finance oligarchs also had reason to fear a multiracial coalition from below,

which had been attempted during the Detroit mass strikes of the 1930s and 1940s, as documented

in the section “Black and White, Unite” of Maurice Zeitlin’s Talking Union. These mass strikes

had forced the finance oligarchs to accept the existence of unions. A program of domestic

counterinsurgency based on racial tokenism and “shucks” for the oppressed ethnic groups now

seemed far more attractive to them. The basic mentality involved is subtly hinted at by Albert

Blumrosen, who as a 1970 functionary of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission helped

to lay the groundwork for the current system. Blumrosen wrote in his book on Black Employment

and the Law: “If discrimination is narrowly defined, for example, by requiring an evil intent to

injure minorities, then it will be difficult to prove that it exists. If it does not exist, then the plight of

racial and ethnic minorities must be attributable to some more generalized failures in society, in the

fields of basic education, housing, family relations, and the like. The search for efforts to improve

the condition of minorities must then focus in these general and difficult areas, and the answers can

come only gradually as basic institutions, attitudes, customs and practices are changed.”

This same outlook had been expressed a little earlier by George Shultz. Over the years Shultz has

been Secretary of Labor, of the Treasury, and of State, and is said to have a Princeton tiger tattooed

on his posterior. During Nixon’s first term, Shultz revived the so-called Philadelphia Plan, a system

of racial quotas for hiring in the then largely white construction trades which had been developed

by Labor Secretary Willard Wirtz of the Johnson administration. John Ehrlichman of Nixon’s

palace guard later commented in his memoirs that Tricky Dick “thought that Secretary of Labor

George Shultz had shown great style constructing a political dilemma for the labor union leaders

and civil rights groups....Before long, the AFL-CIO and the NAACP were locked in combat over

the passionate issues of the day.” (Ehrlichman, 228-229) Later, the McGovern group in the

Democratic Party would inscribe racial and gender quotas on their own banner so prominently that

Nixon in 1972 could get away with attacking McGovern as “the quota candidate.” The Democratic

Party and the unions should at this point have adopted a plank calling for expanded production and

productive jobs for all Americans, rather than accept the logic of quotas, which amount to

quarreling over the distribution of the shrinking pie. The decline of the Democratic Party and of the

labor movement over the reactionary quarter century after 1970 is the result of the failure to

advocate economic expansion, and not quotas, during Nixon’s first term. Quotas and associated

practices like school busing have become lightning rods for white backlash and resentment, which

in turn made possible the successful Republican southern strategy in the Electoral College and the

long night of Reagan, Bush, and Gingrich. 22

NIXON- SHULTZ PHILADELPHIA PLAN PLAYS BLACKS AGAINST UNIONS

According to one account, in a meeting with Republican Congressional leaders “Nixon emphasized

the importance of exploiting the Philadelphia Plan to split the Democratic constituency and drive a

wedge between the civil rights groups and organized labor.” [Hugh Davis Graham, The Civil

Rights Era (New York: Oxford, 1990)] Civil rights leader Bayard Rustin told a 1969 AFL-CIO

gathering that Nixon’s successful playing off of black groups against the unions was “a source of

tremendous satisfaction to powerful enemies of the labor movement.” To underline the consensus

in the ruling elite, the blue-ribbon commission chaired by former Illinois Governor Otto Kerner

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 107

which studied the causes of the ghetto riots of the mid-1960s concluded that “white racism” was

the cause of black discontent and of the race problem in America — white racism alone, and not

slums, low wages, wretched schools, nonexistent health care, and unemployment. The Kerner

Commission report was the voice of the white and inept US ruling elite scapegoating white

workers and the white middle class for its own sorry record.

Originally, racial quotas and affirmative action were supposed to represent redress for past

discrimination. After a decade or two, that was transformed into the need to enhance diversity among a

series of artificial, bureaucratically defined “cultures,” including African-Americans, Asians and

Pacific islanders, Hispanics, Native Americans, and whites as the five official variants. Race quotas,

preferences, set-asides, offsets and the rest of the dismal apparatus of multiculturalism amount to a

sophisticated and insidious counterinsurgency strategy which fosters the co-opting of talented black,

Hispanic and other organic leaders into an artificial stratum of clients of the ruling elite.

Multiculturalism, it must be stressed again, has not led to economic development or to broad-front

improvement in the condition of any ethnic group. Multiculturalism is tokenism. Black and Hispanic

ghetto victims have not been helped by this approach. Multiculturalism has delivered material

advantages for the few, and has betrayed the hopes of the many. In the world of education, the

irrationalist attempt to justify quotas and discrimination has debased the quality of intellectual and

cultural life, which cannot escape the fact that the hopes of the majority of all ethnic origins have been

betrayed. Barack and Michelle Obama are examples of the greedy opportunists who have been the

winners under affirmative action.

SALVING THE BAD CONSCIENCE OF THE BLACK OVERCLASS

Forty years later, these policies have resulted in the creation of a black overclass made up to

some degree of the beneficiaries of affirmative action, racial quotas, set-asides, preferential

treatment in government contracts at all levels for minority-owned businesses, and the like. This

black overclass likes to portray itself as the authentic representatives of the black community as a

whole, but in reality it looks down on the black underclass caught in the cycle of ghetto inner-city

poverty as if it were a completely separate group. More accurately, the affirmative-action portion of

the black overclass regards the oppressed black underclass as a useful political commodity which

can be exploited for the purposes of obtaining more concessions from the white establishment —

concessions which should flow into the pockets of the black overclass, and never reach the

sidewalks of the inner-city ghetto. The black overclass thus combines a militant black nationalist or

black empowerment ideology with extreme forms of economic individualism, rent-seeking, and

personal aggrandizement of all kinds. It is a cynical exercise in duplicity, and is at least one of the

contributing factors for a situation in which the inner-city black ghetto is getting poorer, while the

income gap between the black overclass and the black underclass is also rapidly expanding.

What then is the psychological consequence of such a situation for the individual member of the

black overclass? The black overclass is rapidly accumulating mansions, BMWs, mink coats,

diamond jewelry, and the other apparatus of conspicuous consumption. The black ghetto victim, by

contrast, is sinking deeper and deeper into abject poverty. In the face of the situation, however, the

black overclass continues to demand additional privileges for itself, while continuing to neglect the

urgent material needs of the vast majority of the black community. The kind of black liberation

theology purveyed by Dwight Hopkins, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and the Trinity United

Church of Christ provides a kind of answer to the resulting psychological tensions. The more

BMWs you have in your garage and the more mink coats you have in your closet, the more

vehemently you must complain about the Atlantic slave trade, apartheid and the Sharpeville

108 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

massacre, the Tuskegee experiment, and similar atrocities, often quite real but all far from your own

privileged existence. The more Ivy League degrees you have on your wall, the louder you must

chant, “God damn America!” The more government contracts you have obtained, the more you

must profess the blowback theory of 9/11, citing the 3,000 deaths of innocent people as God’s

punishment for the racist crimes of US imperialism. All these points represent nothing but the

characteristic outlook of the foundations. The religion preached by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright

and the theologian Dwight Hopkins at the Trinity United Church of Christ is demonstrably not

Christianity, but rather a gnostic-synthetic ersatz belief structure which has been whipped up and

concocted for the special emotional needs of a narrow segment of the black overclass under

conditions of affirmative action in the late Anglo-American imperialist development. To be more

concise, Reverend Wright’s church is a foundation-funded cult. It teaches an ethnocentric, synthetic

religion.

Some in the black community offered criticisms of Wright; here is one from Jonetta Rose

Barras, a well-known radio commentator in the Washington DC area, who was confused about

Obama, but not about that fact that Wright was at least obsolete:

I’ve known preachers like the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., former pastor to Sen. Barack Obama.

Like many of them, he no doubt sees his congregation as full of victims, and thinks that his words

will inspire them to rise out of their victimhood. I understand that. Once upon a time, I saw myself

as a victim, too, destined to march in place. In the 1970s and ‘80s, as a clenched-fist-pumping black

nationalist with my head wrapped in an elaborate gele, I reflected that self-concept in my speech.

My words were as fiery as the Rev. Wright’s. And more than a few times, I, too, damned America,

loudly, for its treatment of blacks. But I turned away from such rhetoric. Is it time that Wright and

other ministers do, too? But just as spirituals eventually lost their relevance and potency as an

organizing tool against discrimination — even as they retained their historical importance in the

African-American cultural narrative — so, I believe, has Wright-speak lost its place. It’s harmful

and ultimately can’t provide healing. And it’s outdated in the 21st century. I came to this realization

gradually. As I expanded my associations and experiences — organizing in places such as San

Francisco, Providence, R.I., Patterson, N.J. and Northeast Washington, meeting caring Hispanics,

Asians and whites — I came to know that we are all more alike than different. I saw that our dreams

sat inside each other. All of us wanted a better America, not so much for ourselves as for our

children, and their children. Achieving this meant that we had to get beyond our past segregated

lives and work together, inspiring the best in ourselves — not the bitterness and the biases. […]And

today, there is an entire generation of young people who know nothing of segregation, who see one

another as individuals, not as symbols of a dark past. They do not look into white faces and see, as I

once did, a burning cross, a white sheet and a vicious dog on a police officer’s leash. This is the

coalition pushing for a new America. (Jonetta Rose Barras, “He’s Preaching to a Choir I’ve Left,”

Washington Post, March 23, 2008)

DOROTHY TILLMAN, OBAMA ALLY: “AMERICA OWES US” GRAFT

Another of Obama’s Chicago political cronies is Dorothy Tillman, an alderwoman of the city.

Tillman’s specialty is to try to extort payments from banks and corporations which reportedly go to

herself and her clients, based on the accusation that the bank or company in question participated in

slavery. Tillman has been quoted as saying her goal is to “repair the damage of 400 years” of

slavery. “America owes us,” she says. (Chicago Sun-Times, March 26, 2007) Again, this is not the

demand for broad-based economic development programs for the black underclass. It is often an

attempt to extort cash payments to specific individuals to make a public relations problem go away,

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 109

leaving the black ghetto in its current predicament. Alderman Tillman’s record must be read in

connection with her track record for corruption: ‘Obama had endorsed …Dorothy Tillman, calling

her “a very early supporter of my campaign.” Tillman was then under fire for her stewardship of the

scandal-plagued Harold Washington Cultural Center, where contracts benefited members of her

family. Obama rejected the notion that such endorsements conflict with his promotion of ethics

reform in government.’ (Chicago Tribune, June 12, 2007)

Reverend Wright argued in his sermon on Christmas Day 2007 that resistance against the Obama

presidential candidacy was predicated on the fact that Obama did not “fit the mold.” “He ain’t

white!” exclaimed the Reverend. A half truth at best, since Obama is half white. “He ain’t rich!”

Manifestly false, since the Obamas reported a 2005 income of about $1.6 million, with Michelle

pulling down $325,000 as gatekeeper to push black ghetto victims out of the University of Chicago

Hospital, plus $101,083 in 2006 for serving on the board of the wage-gouging, union-busting Tree

House (a Walmart supplier). Obama got almost $70,000 per year as a mere lecturer at the

University of Chicago Law School, a very good deal for a mere adjunct. They live in a mansion

with a wine cellar containing a thousand bottles of the finest vintage wine – as many bottles of wine

as Imelda Marcos had pairs of shoes. By mid-2008, it was estimated that the Obamas were worth

about $7 million overall. They were rich by anybody’s measure. “He ain’t privileged!” Another lie,

as Michelle’s Princeton and Harvard degrees, made possible by affirmative action, sufficiently

document.

In a cynical attempt at deceiving voters, Obama has tried to pretend that sermons with incendiary

contents were the exception rather than the rule at Trinity United. This is obviously disingenuous.

Obama was not just listening to Reverend Wright, he was also subsidizing the oratory of hatred with

his generous financial contributions to the church. Obama was helping to pay for Reverend

Wright’s microphone! Hatred was obviously Reverend Wright’s weekly stock in trade. Did Obama

ever walk out of a sermon? Did he ever tell Reverend Wright to tone it down — before he began

running for president at the end of 2006? Did he ever threaten to quit the congregation? Evidently,

he did not.

By mid-March 2008, the Reverend Wright affair had placed Obama in a bind. Would he remain

a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ under Reverend Wright’s hand-picked successor,

reportedly a worthy disciple in his apostolate of hatred? If he did, you could be sure that Reverend

Wright’s taped outbursts would continue to knock him off message. If he tried to cut his losses by

exiting from the congregation, he could be sure that an entire phalanx of Reverend Wright’s coreligionists

of the black theology school would condemn him as a sellout who was capitulating

under the pressure of the white man. All Obama could do was to attempt to paper over the entire

question with his mellifluous and ambiguous rhetoric of reconciliation, which was sounding

increasingly hollow in this new context. Even when he later pretended to repudiate Wright, it was

done with qualifiers – he said that his relationship with Wright had changed, not that it was over. He

also remained an active member of Trinity United, which now passed under the leadership of Ford

Foundation grantee Otis Moss III. Obama left Trinity United only when the primaries were over and

he was beginning his hard right turn.

THE CASE OF FATHER PFLEGER, RENEGADE THEOLIB PRIEST

The new Otis Moss regime brought new problems for Obama. On Easter Sunday, Moss preached

that Wright had been subjected to a crucifixion, thus returning to the rhetorical tropes of

victimization and persecution so favored by affirmative-action race-mongers when they get into

110 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

trouble. Moss also had a policy of inviting incendiary racist provocateurs to join him during divine

services at Trinity United. One of these firebrands was a certain Father Michael Pfleger, a fiery

liberal social activist of the liberation theology school and a white reverend at an African-American

church, St. Sabina’s Catholic Church on the South Side of Chicago. Pfleger, an expert in racial

pandering, is a longtime friend and associate of Obama, having known him since the Perfect Master

was a community activist poverty pimp. In September, the Obama campaign had brought Pfleger to

Iowa to host one of several interfaith forums for the campaign. So here we have yet another close

personal friend of Obama over more than two decades who turns out to be a race-baiting

provocateur.

Pfleger’s appearance at the post-Wright Trinity United was introduced by Rev. Otis Moss

personally with much praise for the visiting priest. Pfleger then launched into a tirade about the

importance of taking on “white entitlement and supremacy wherever it raises its head.” This goes

back directly to the classic Weatherman line of “white skin privilege” still embraced by Dohrn and

Ayers. Pfleger then turned his attention to those who have the temerity to oppose the ascendancy of

the Perfect Master: “Rev. Moss, when Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really

don’t believe it was put on,” Pfleger raved from the pulpit. “I really believe that she just always

thought, ‘This is mine! I’m Bill’s wife, I’m white, and this is mine! I just gotta get up and step into

the plate.’ And then out of nowhere came, ‘Hey, I’m Barack Obama,’ and she said, ‘Oh, damn!

Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’

Pfleger then mocks Hillary weeping, much to delight of the crowd, many of whom stand up and

applaud. “She wasn’t the only one crying, there was a whole lot of white people crying!” Pfleger

says to laughter. The tape, which shows only this one controversial part of Pfleger’s “sermon,” then

cuts to Moss thanking Pfleger: “We thank God for the message, we thank God for the messenger,

we thank God for Father Michael Pfleger,” Moss says.’ (Aaron Klein, World Net Daily, June 1,

2008)

PFLEGER: “AMERICA IS THE GREATEST SIN AGAINST GOD”

“Racism is still America’s greatest addiction,” Pfleger says. “I also believe that America is the

greatest sin against God.” There seems to be a mixed reaction to that from the pews. But Pfleger

explains: “If the greatest command is to love, than the sin against love must be the greatest sin

against God who IS love and who calls us to love one another. So that this greatest sin against God,

racism, it’s as natural as the air we breathe.” (Taylor Marsh, June 1, 2008) The New York Times

recently reported that Father Pfleger had “long worked with South Side political leaders to reduce

crime and improve the community” — so being a racist provocateur is only a sideline. “But he has

drawn fire from some quarters for defending the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and

inviting him to speak at his church.” (Jake Tapper, “Priest and Obama Ally Mocks Clinton’s Tears

from Obama’s Church’s Pulpit,” ABC New, May 29, 2008)

There could now be absolutely no doubt that Obama’s church represents an incendiary beacon

and clearing house of racist provocation, is the atmosphere of race-baiting and scurrilous insults

which Obama chose and embraced, not just for himself but for his entire family. Obama long

remained a member of this cesspool of hatred, thus guaranteeing that the entire issue will live on all

the way to the November election. ‘Sen. Barack Obama’s chief political strategist sits on the finance

committee of the Chicago church led by controversial pastor Michael Pfleger, who claimed in a

sermon last weekend Sen. Hillary Clinton cried in public because she thought being white entitled

her to the Democratic presidential nomination.’ (Aaron Klein, World Net Daily, June 1, 2008)

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 111

WRIGHT’S $1.6 MILLION MANSION IN A RICH WHITE GATED COMMUNITY

Wright himself was apparently taken underground by the Obama campaign, who did not want

this racist provocateur doing any media interviews. Speculation was rife on right-wing talk radio

that the racist reverend had been sequestered by Axelrod, and that he now slept with the fishes. In

reality, he was ensconced at a luxury resort hotel in the Caribbean. Then it became known that

Wright was about to move into a newly constructed $1.6 million mansion in the Chicago suburbs in

a gated community where the black population was less than 2%. He was reported to enjoy a $10

million line of credit provided by Trinity United. His Porsche was in the garage. Wright was not an

ascetic.

Wright is also a highly political reverend, who gets around to the Gamaliel Foundation’s

schedule of conferences. On June 21-22, 2007, for example, Gamaliel held its “African-American

Leadership Conference” in Pittsburgh under the theme of “Uniting for Power.” The keynote speaker

was none other than Jeremiah Wright. At this conference, Reverend John C. Welch of Pittsburgh

made a thinly veiled call to mobilize politically for Obama: “I hope that when you leave you will

also have a plan for your cities so that collectively we can make sure that this country will undergo

an unprecedented cosmetic surgery in the 2008 presidential election,” said Welch. Welch was right:

an Obama presidency, as is argued in this book, would constitute nothing more than a cosmetic

makeover or facelift for a moribund empire. The goal needs to be to turn away from the path of

empire and return to the ways of the constitutional republic. But Obama is too much of a puppet to

be able to contemplate that route.

When Otis Moss III, who replaced Wright at Trinity United, took advantage of the national

attention focused on Trinity United to devote his Easter Sunday sermon to defending Wright from

what he termed a “crucifixion.” The point was that the affirmative action beneficiary needed above

all things to cultivate the metaphysical pose of the eternal victim – in order to get more grants. One

was reminded of a right-wing reactionary who had benefited from affirmative action (even if he

proposed to remove it for others). This was Clarence Thomas, who told his 1992 Senate

confirmation hearings that he had been the victim of a “high-tech lynching.” Otis Moss III had gone

to college at Morehouse College thanks to a grant from the Ford Foundation.

NATIONAL SOCIALISM: THE CYNICAL USES OF IDENTITY POLITICS

The activities of the Ford Foundation and the other foundations for which it serves as a flagship

do not represent the first time that racial issues have been cynically used for the pursuit of political

ends. The leader of the National Socialist movement will always be associated with the most

virulent exploitation of crackpot race doctrines which furnished the staples of his demagogy. But it

is also interesting to note that even this greatest racist of the 20th century was fully aware that the

concept of race was a fraud and a sham. Here is Hitler in an unguarded moment speaking to

Hermann Rauschning, the leader of the Nazi movement in Gdansk or Danzig, sometime in the

autumn 1934:

The conception of the nation has become meaningless. The conditions of the time compelled

me to begin on the basis of that conception. But I realized from the first that it could have only

transient validity. The ‘nation’ is a political expedient of democracy and liberalism. We have

to get rid of this false conception and set in its place the conception of race, which has not yet

been politically used up. The new order cannot be conceived in terms of national boundaries of

the peoples with an historic past, but in terms of race which transcends those boundaries. All

112 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

the adjustments and corrections of frontiers, and in regions of colonization, are a plowing of the

sands… I know perfectly well, just as well as all these tremendously clever intellectuals, that in

the scientific sense there is no such thing as race. But you, as a farmer and cattle breeder,

cannot get your breeding successfully achieved without the conception of race. And I as a

politician need a conception which enables the order which has hitherto existed on historic

bases to be abolished and an entirely new anti-historic order enforced and given an intellectual

basis. Understand what I mean… I have to liberate the world from dependence on its historic

past. Nations are the outward and visible forms of our history. So I have to fuse these nations

into a higher order if I want to get rid of the chaos of an historic past which has become an

absurdity. And for this purpose the conception of race serves me well. It disposes of the old

order and makes possible new associations. France carried her great revolution beyond her

borders with the conception of the nation. With the conception of race, National Socialism will

carry its revolution abroad and remake the world. (Hermann Rauschning, Voice of Destruction

[New York: Putnam, 1940], 231-232)

It is worth underlining that a racist outlook and the outlook of the modern state are antithetical.

The US financier elites may have found that playing the race card has functioned as an effective

form of counterinsurgency over the last four decades, but they also need to recognize that the

politically correct and multicultural cult of racial diversity is a highly corrosive factor weakening

the American state and polity.

OBAMA’S RACE SPEECH: A HYPOCRITE WITH A TELEPROMPTER

Obama’s speech on race, delivered with much fanfare in Philadelphia on March 18 in response

to the initial explosion of the Jeremiah Wright controversy, was a microcosm of the moral and

intellectual bankruptcy of his presidential campaign. Prior to any content, the setting and method

deserve attention. Obama as a candidate is as controlled and scripted as, say, Elizabeth Dole most of

the time. He avoids answering questions and does not like unstructured repartee or give and take.

His typical formats often offer no opportunity for questions and answers, only soaring rhetoric and

platitudes. He is no debater; he is a pontificator. His favorite approach is the Nuremberg rally, with

the speech read off the glass panes of a teleprompter to his left and right, an apparatus not noticed

by so many of his fawning disciples and dupes. This was the method used in his Iowa victory

speech, and this was the method in Philadelphia. Obama appeared with his head thrown back,

literally looking down his nose at the audience: he was literally talking down to them. The tone was

self-righteous, lecturing, even hectoring. His approach was condescending, patronizing, belittling

his audience. Voters have complained that Obama simply lacks any credible credentials for talking

down to them in this way.

Obama had been caught consorting with the racist provocateur, Jeremiah Wright. But he did not

apologize. He turned the actual moral situation on its head by portraying Wright as a reflection of

American racism, and blaming the American people and their inveterate racism. This method of

blaming the public for one’s own blunders and incompetence has been a staple of the Trilateral

political faction going back to Carter’s infamous malaise speech of July 1979. Obama has never

sincerely apologized for anything. Those who were shocked in 2004 when Bush was unable to think

of any error or mistake that he had made should be more concerned about Obama, who also lacks

the moral courage to admit a mistake or a failing. The sole exceptions are his attempt to get off the

hook for shady and unethical transactions that may have crossed the line into actual felonies: thus,

his stock line for responding to questions about his smelly house-flipping deal with underworld

kingpin Tony Rezko is to say that this was a “boneheaded” mistake. In the case of Wright, Obama

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 113

had been imbibing racist hatred in the pews for 20 years, and exposing his wife and children to the

foul-mouthed tirades of the raving reverend. But he never apologized, never uttered a self-critical

word. Obama is like Bush: structurally incapable of self-criticism. This may in turn be rooted in the

mental defect we find in both of them: megalomania.

A plausible defense for Obama would have gone like this: “I ask the American people to forgive

me for my terrible political opportunism. I came to Chicago and needed to build a political base.

Wright was a popular preacher, and he had a following among the upwardly mobile black opinion

leaders I wanted to meet and to cultivate. He also had a program of church social work which gave

him a veneer of credibility among poorer blacks. I joined the church and brought my wife and

children there. We sat through the “God damn America” two-minute hate tirades and gave Wright

as much as we could afford, over twenty-five grand last year, to get his support and endorsement.

He was mobilizing his national network of black liberation theology ministers for me, and nobody

else could do that for me. Wright drives a Porsche and is about to move into a $1.6 million house,

so he always wanted money. But now Wright has become a colossal political liability, so I am

dumping him. I condemn him and repudiate him, I am quitting his church, and I will never speak to

him again as long as I live. I will never give him another penny as long as I live, and neither will

anyone in my family. I will not allow him anywhere near the White House, and I will not steer

government patronage money his way. This is a clean break, irrevocable and unalterable. No more

Jeremiah Wright. I sincerely apologize to the American people and ask for their forgiveness. I am

guilty of political opportunism, and I will work to win redemption. God bless America.”

This would have been the best possible damage control in regard to Wright, but Obama was

structurally incapable of giving a speech like this, even if he had not meant it and fully intended to

keep Wright in a secret priest hole in the White House to serve as his confessor and spiritual

director for all four years and beyond. This would have involved the three steps of penitence – the

contrition of the heart, the confession of the mouth, and the restitution and satisfaction of works.

Obama could never be a penitent. Instead, Obama reached back to the Carter malaise speech of July

1979.23

From this speech Obama abstracted the characteristic method of a Trilateral-Ford puppet who is

caught in malfeasance: blame the American people, especially the working class. Backed by a row

of American flags, with his head thrown back (partly in arrogance and partly to facilitate reading off

the glass plates of the teleprompter) Obama attempted to turn reality on its head, and especially to

turn the tables on the critics of Wright. He tried to contort himself from a sleazy Chicago wardheeling

pol who had been caught in the company of a widely hated extremist, to a moralistic social

critic sagaciously diagnosing the pathologies of the American body politic. The words flickered

across the glass plates of the teleprompter and out of Obama’s yap, rife with Harvardian

modulations. Obama morphed from the defendant that he was into the divine state prosecutor of the

judgment day, reading the American people the list of their sins, original, mortal, and venal: racism,

racism, racism.

It turned out that Reverend Wright was not a satanic huckster projecting the Ford Foundation’s

divide-and-conquer strategy of financier oligarch domination into the realm of pseudo-Christian

theology, oh no. Reverend Wright was a microcosm who reflected the conflicts of American

society, and the chief of these was once again racism. Wright’s specific comments could always be

rejected, but Wright could not be rejected, because he had become part and parcel of Obama’s hardwon

race identity, his völkische Identität. And Wright was not the only one to be tainted by racism:

there was also Obama’s grandmother Toot, who had once been frightened by a potential mugger

114 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

who had happened to be black. Obama droned on mercilessly, reading the words off his trusty glass

plates.

At the end, it turned out that the country needed a new dialogue about race. Not about

foreclosures that were hitting the black community harder than any other sector of the population.

Not about mass layoffs, that were hitting blacks hardest, since they were the last hired and the first

fired in such industries as remained. Not about food price inflation, which was undermining the

living standards of blacks along with everyone else. Not about the black high school dropout rate,

nor the incarceration rate of young black men. Not about banking panic. Not even about soaring

college tuition costs. Just about race, understood as an attitude, as an autonomous force in history,

divorced from its material basis, and divorced from any class analysis that might account for social

tensions in some other way.

OBAMA: NO SPECIFIC PROPOSALS TO HELP THE BLACK UNDERCLASS

It was worth noting that Obama labored very hard to create the appearance of a campaign that

studiously avoided all racial issues, at least as far as the candidate himself was concerned. He had

not proposed anything to help Harlem, Anacostia, Watts-South Central, or the Cabrini Greens. Up

to this point, Obama had made zero proposals specifically designed to help poor inner city blacks,

nor did he make any such proposals now. The Obama campaign ethos was on the surface postracial,

trans-racial, globalized. But beneath the surface, the Obama campaign was a brutal racist

slander machine, capable of generating the absurd myth that Bill Clinton was a racist (a myth which

Sean Wilentz has dismantled and exposed). This was a trick which the political thug David Axelrod

had learned in Chicago, where he had sometimes managed the campaigns of black candidates who

wanted to attract the votes of upper-middle class white voters. The trick was to project an image of

trans-racial and post-racial beatitude on the part of the candidate, but to have surrogates and

campaign spokespersons ruthlessly slime the opponent as a racist any time he dared to raise the

most minute criticism. The classic stance of the Obama campaign was, in a nutshell, that if you dare

criticize our man, you are revealing yourself as a racist. It was a masterpiece of self-righteous

duplicity.

Needless to say, the controlled corporate media and their media whores swooned in ecstasy.

Obama’s speech joined the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address among the

foundational documents of the United States, raved quite a few. It should be printed by the million

and made required reading in every school, raved others. For the left liberals, the speech had the

unique merit of expressing their own class-based race-dominated world view through the mouth of

someone who claimed to be black, but using the jargon of the academic oligarch. The left liberals

crowed that Obama had turned the tables on his critics and opponents, and that the Reverend Wright

issue had now been successfully neutralized; no longer would the South Side Savonarola be a millstone

around the neck of the Perfect Master as he strove towards the seizure of power.

Ordinary working people, American voters, had other ideas. The racist provocations of Wright

were a permanent guarantee that Obama could not be elected president in the normal way, that is,

without the destruction of his competition by Gestapo methods through the FBI and Department of

Justice, in the way that Governor Spitzer had been taken down. The danger was that Obama had so

many ogres and monsters in his left CIA-Ford Foundation base of support and in his past in general

that, if he were at the top of the Democratic ticket, he would drag the entire party down to defeat

with him. Obama had no coat-tails. He had reverse coat-tails; he was a burden for Democratic

candidates down the ticket. The burden was composed of Jeremiah Wright the racist provocateur,

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 115

Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn the Weatherman terrorist bombers and butchers, Tony Rezko and

Auchi the gangsters, Michelle Obama the fascist ideologue, and most of all of Obama’s own secret

persona as the Marx-Fanon-Rousseau anthropologist and theoretician of bitterness. This was a

crushing, intolerable, unsustainable burden for any Democratic candidate who wanted to win an

election anywhere other than Berkeley, Big Sur, Jackson Hole, Hyde Park, the Upper West Side, or

Takoma Park.

MICHELLE ROBINSON, QUOTA QUEEN AND ETERNAL VICTIM

Obama’s future wife Michelle now enters our narrative as Michelle Robinson. She was born into

what she always claims was a working-class family of modest means from the South Side of

Chicago in 1964. She graduated from Whitney Young High School in Chicago in 1981 and majored

in sociology at Princeton University, graduating cum laude with the Class of 1985. She received her

Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School in 1988.

Michelle needs very much for the public to believe that she came from a very humble

background. Why should this be so? It is because Michelle’s stance is metaphysically that of the

eternal victim. Part of this pose must be related to bad conscience, assuming that she has a

conscience. She has been the recipient of privileged treatment. She constantly repeats that her

Scholastic Aptitude Test scores were not good enough to get into Princeton. But she was admitted,

with a scholarship. The only explanation is that she benefited from a preferential racial quota.

Michelle is thus in reality what Lani Guinier was called in the press 15 years ago: she is a Quota

Queen. She then went to Harvard Law School. In the meantime, the black underclass has been left

to its own devices in festering inner-city ghettos. How does this brutal class reality impact the

mentality of someone like Michelle? She needs to reject class, and embrace race with a vengeance.

Above all, she must assume the pose of a victim, of a person with an overwhelming grievance. This

sense of victimhood is an indispensable component in the mentality of fascism. The Italians and

Germans of the 1920s and 1930s felt that they had been treated very badly, humiliated, betrayed,

stabbed in the back, and the fruits of their sacrifices mutilated. Michelle Obama has this basic

prerequisite to be a fascist ideologue; as we will see, she has realized that potential.

Michelle Obama’s illusory account of a grim and disadvantaged youth on the edge of poverty

has not withstood examination. The distinguished University of Pennsylvania political scientist

Adolph Reed has pointed out the essential inaccuracy of what has been alleged about Michelle by

her backers. Reed observes:

The Obama campaign has even put out a misleading bio of Michelle Obama, representing her as

having grown up in poverty on the South Side, when, in fact, her parents were city workers, and

her father was a Daley machine precinct captain. This fabrication, along with those

embroideries of the candidate’s own biography, may be standard fare, the typical log cabin

narrative. However, in Obama’s case, the license taken not only underscores Obama’s more

complex relationship to insider politics in Daley’s Chicago; it also underscores how much this

campaign depends on selling an image rather than substance. (Adolph Reed, “Obama No,” The

Progressive, May 17, 2008)

NEWTON MINOW OF SIDLEY, AUSTIN, FRIEND OF BARKY

Barry encountered Michelle for the first time thanks to the efforts a top establishment fixer, the

venerable Newton Minow, who still wraps himself in the banner of Camelot. Minow has been one

116 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

of Obama’s key backers. Minow is still widely known today for belaboring the obvious: it was

Minow who popularized the phrase “vast wasteland” for American broadcast television in 1961,

when he was the head of the Federal Communications Commission under Kennedy. Minow spoke

as an elitist, perhaps preparing the way for the foundation-funded PBS system, a Rockefeller idea

which expresses the view of the foundation oligarchy. Now in advanced age, Minow can be seen as

a patriarch of the Chicago oligarchy, a leading grandee of the Chicago establishment. Minow may

be one of the case officers working Obama on behalf of the Trilaterals, Bilderbergers, and the

banking establishment in general. Minow’s political judgment is very much open to question: he

was a prominent backer of Adlai E. Stevenson, the liberal Illinois governor and supercilious elitist

who lost the presidency to Eisenhower not once but twice, in 1952 and 1956 as well. Minow’s

fortunes improved when he battened on to the Kennedy bandwagon. We read in a recent account:

At 81, sitting in his law office at Sidley Austin, in the Loop, above a stretch of street christened

Honorary Newton N. Minow Way, Minow is talking about the young man his daughter Martha,

a professor at Harvard Law School, recommended for a summer associate’s job two decades

ago. At Minow’s firm Obama fell in love with a young lawyer, Michelle Robinson, who would

become his wife. “I adored Jack Kennedy,” Minow explains, “and I saw the 21st-century

version of Jack Kennedy in my mind. He is astonishing. I think the fundamental point is the

country wants a different kind of politics.” He adds, “I also believe the race issue and the

gender issue are yesterday, particularly with young people.” One-upping Justice Oliver Wendell

Holmes’s famous summary of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s gifts, Minow, a former Supreme Court

clerk, says, “I believe as the country sees Barack, gets to know him, they will see the same thing

I see: really a combination of a first-class mind and a first-class temperament, all in the same

person.” (Purdum, Vanity Fair, March 2008)

For our present purposes, the point is that Barry met Michelle thanks to the mediation of old

Newt Minow in the Sidley Austin law firm one summer.

MICHELLE OBAMA REVEALED

Sharon Churcher, writing for the right-wing London paper The Daily Mail, provides a

penetrating look at Michelle Obama as she really is as a person and as a life story. The emphasis is

on Michelle’s attempt to deceive the public, always for the purpose of painting herself as a victim.

Churcher observes that

Michelle’s pitch is far from sophisticated, playing heavily on her humble beginnings and

traditional values: “I was raised in a working-class family on the south Side of Chicago. That’s

how I identify myself, a working-class girl,” she has told the voters, time after time. It helps that

she cuts a fine figure on the stump, tall and slender with a hair ‘flip’ reminiscent of Jackie

Kennedy. And it does no harm that, while Barack, 46, comes from mixed Kenyan and white

parentage, Michelle, 44, is authentically African-American, giving the Obamas an unmatched

breadth of appeal. Last week it seemed the mask had slipped when, speaking unscripted for

once, a sharper, less emollient Michelle emerged. “For the first time in my adult life I feel really

proud of my country,” she said, an apparent lack of patriotism immediately seized on by her

Republican opponents. When The Mail on Sunday went back to the gritty district of Chicago

where Michelle LaVaughn Robinson was raised, we found a rather different picture from the

one so single-mindedly promoted by Camp Obama. Instead of the one-room tenement that now

appears in most accounts of her upbringing, we found a well-kept neighbourhood of red-brick

Arts and Craft-style houses which have long been home to respectable black families.’ (Sharon

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 117

Churcher, “Mrs O.: The truth about Michelle Obama’s ‘working class’ credentials, London

Daily Mail, February 23, 2008)

So Michelle was from a very comfortable family, after all. In fact, some of Michelle’s early

advantages came from her father’s status as a ward heeler for the Chicago Democratic machine,

long associated with the Daley family:

“Michelle was from a middle-class family,” confirmed one of her long-time friends, Angela

Acree. “She came from a regular family. They had a nice home. It wasn’t a mansion, but it was

just fine. It was a decent neighbourhood.”

The Robinsons grew up on the upper floor of a house built in the Twenties. Number 7436 South

Euclid Avenue - a classical reference to the Greek mathematician which found an appropriate

echo in Michelle’s subsequent respect for traditional learning - even has a small garden, shaded

by a large elm tree, and an ornate stone bench.

The South Side of Chicago has long had its share of gang-infested housing ‘projects’ but with

the University of Chicago hospital close by, there were plenty of white professionals in the area

as well as hard-working families in the Robinsons’ own image.

No one could pretend they were rich and it is true that her father, Frasier Robinson, spent some

time as a maintenance worker for Chicago’s Department of Water Management.

However, he was a good deal more than the labourer that many seem to imagine.

Indeed, according to family friends, Michelle’s father was a volunteer organiser for the city’s

Democratic Party, a by-word for machine politics in America, and his loyalty was rewarded

with a well-paid engineering job at Chicago’s water plant. Even before overtime, he earned

$42,686 – 25 per cent more than High School teachers at the time.

Michelle’s mother stayed at home and devoted her energies to her and her older brother Craig.

Marian Robinson nurtured great ambitions for both her children, along with the traditional

values which are now serving Michelle so well.

Television was all but banned in favour of homework, debates about the issues of the day and

improving games of chess.

Bright and determined, Michelle was awarded a place at one of Chicago’s first ‘magnet’

schools, which offered special programmes for gifted children. By the time she was 13, she was

taking a college-level biology course.

Even as a child, she was not to be underestimated, says Craig, now 45, who works as the head

basketball coach at high-flying Brown University. There was no doubt who was in charge.

“We had this game where we set up two rooms and played ‘Office’,” he recalled. “She was the

secretary, and I was the boss. But she did everything. It was her game, and I kind of had nothing

to do. My sister is a poor sport. She didn’t like to lose.”

She rarely did. Michelle beat huge competition to win a place studying sociology at Princeton,

one of America’s most venerable and expensive universities.

Once she had arrived amid the fauxgothic precincts, however, she found herself surrounded by

spoilt white students from wealthy families. She, in contrast, was obliged to take out loans to

pay her way and this rankled, as she revealed in a 1985 thesis. (Sharon Churcher, “Mrs O.: The

truth about Michelle Obama’s ‘working class’ credentials, London Daily Mail, February 23,

2008)

118 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

This is the domineering Michelle Obama we have come to know; a supermarket tabloid story

claims that she controls everything that husband Barack does.

MICHELLE OBAMA AND CHERIE BLAIR: VULGAR, GRASPING ARRIVISTES

The British author compares Michelle to Cherie Blair, the wife of former British Prime Minister

Tony Blair. The suggestion is that Michelle is the same kind of grasping, greedy, striving, socialclimbing,

vulgar arriviste or nouveau riche which the British public had learned to hold in

contempt. Turning to Michelle’s thesis, she writes:

The document …betrays an angry, campaigning brand of politics which in no way fits with the

mild-mannered advocate of common sense now winning hearts and minds from coast to coast…

There are those who, in any case, suggest that her ideological roots have always remained rather

shallow and that, for the most part of her life, politics have been overshadowed by the

straightforward business of ‘getting on’.

Even at university, Michelle was well aware that there was more to life than politics, admitting

in that same thesis that a ‘high-paying position’ could prove more attractive than a life of placards

and late-night meetings.

It was little surprise to those who knew her at the time that it was commerce not campaigning

that claimed her when she graduated with a law degree from Harvard, taking a post with Sidley

Austin, an eminent Chicago law firm. Her specialist area was not human rights or family law, but

the lucrative detail of copyright and trademark cases.

An acquaintance of Obama’s family compares her with another political wife, another lawyer as

it happens, with a keen interest in making money.

“Michelle is very much like Cherie Blair. She is a middle-class girl who has discovered that

money is nice and doesn’t see that as a contradiction with having radical beliefs,” he said.

Chicago’s veteran political consultant and pundit Joe Novak agrees, saying: “She [Michelle] is now

motivated more by personal gain than by social consciousness. She saw her opportunities, and she

took them.” (Sharon Churcher, “Mrs O.: The truth about Michelle Obama’s ‘working class’

credentials, London Daily Mail, February 23, 2008)

Sharon Churcher focuses on the affluent, opulent life style now affected by the arriviste

Michelle, who is now thoroughly addicted to the finer things in life:

The rewards have been significant. Despite the image she projects on the Newsweek cover,

Michelle owns an impressive collection of diamond jewelry, designer outfits and £400-a-pair

Jimmy Choo shoes.

When she is wooing working-class voters, however, she favours austere black skirts and white

blouses. “Our lives are so close to normal, if there is such a thing when you’re running for

president,” she declared during a campaign stop in Delaware, shortly before her husband’s

latest victories were announced.

“When I’m off the road, I’m going to Target to get the toilet paper.”

She did not bother to mention, however, that the paper, like the rest of the family shopping, is

taken to an £825,000 three-storey [c. $1.6 million] red-brick Georgian revival mansion, set

amid beautifully manicured lawns in one of Chicago’s most affluent districts.

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 119

Even the house became a source of controversy when it emerged that the wife of a Chicago

slum landlord, Tony Rezko, helped them buy land to enlarge its grounds.

More contentious still was Michelle’s appointment as the £150,000-a-year vice-president of

external affairs at the University of Chicago hospital in 2005.

It came only two months after Barack was sworn in as a U.S. senator, and was attacked by

critics as a blatant attempt by the hospital’s hierarchy to curry favour with her husband, in an

era when some politicians want to rein in the vast profits of America’s medical system.

They questioned why the wife of a committed Democrat would work for a hospital that has

been accused of ruthless greed.

Michelle’s image was further tarnished in May 2006, when it was revealed that the centre -

despite earning some £50 million a year – had refused to treat a man who could not afford to

pay his bill. He died.

All of which has led some political veterans to accuse Michelle of the very lack of compassion

and moral scruples that her husband has lambasted in his Republican rivals for the White

House. (Sharon Churcher, “Mrs O.: The truth about Michelle Obama’s ‘working class’

credentials, London Daily Mail, February 23, 2008)

Michelle is thus a gatekeeper against the black community, and her activity has already claimed

victims.24

Some sources reached by Sharon Churcher have been able to draw the necessary conclusions

about Michelle Obama’s substandard moral and political qualities. Unlike Hillary Clinton, they

point out, neither Obama has endorsed far-reaching healthcare reforms.

Michelle also is under attack for joining the board of a food company where she allegedly took

part in a 2005 decision to close a pickle and relish plant in La Junta, Colorado, putting 150 mostly

Hispanic labourers out of work. The small town was devastated. “It totally amazed me when they

closed it,” said La Junta mayor Don Rizzuto, who had believed that Michelle and her husband were

“the champions of the little guy.”

In their most recently publicised tax returns, for 2005, the Obamas earned £800,000. This

included royalties from the senator’s autobiography Dreams from My Father, and his £82,600

Senate salary. Under a three-book deal which he subsequently signed, he stands to earn at least £1

million.

To Joe Novak, this only goes to prove that Michelle is distorting reality when she attempts to

depict herself as a champion of the masses. “For the past year (she and Barack) have jetted around

the country with Oprah Winfrey and Robert De Niro, enjoying penthouse parties and living the high

life,” he said.

Perhaps, when she contrasts her current red-carpet lifestyle with the unassuming world of South

Euclid Avenue, she genuinely may think that her childhood was impoverished. And the one thing

that is certain about the incredible Mrs O. is that she never intends to have to live that way again.’

(Sharon Churcher, “Mrs O.: The truth about Michelle Obama’s ‘working class’ credentials, London

Daily Mail, February 23, 2008)

Barack Obama has the mental structures of a fatherless boy, and he knows it. “The truth is that

none of the men in my life were that successful or that stable,” [Michelle] Obama told me. “They

made an awful lot of mistakes.” (Purdum, Vanity Fair, March 2008) Later, when it came time to

marry Michelle, he hesitated; Barack had a more bohemian attitude toward romance. “We would

120 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

have this running debate throughout our relationship about whether marriage was necessary,”

Obama told me. “It was sort of a bone of contention, because I was, like, ‘Look, buddy, I’m not one

of these who’ll just hang out forever.’ You know, that’s just not who I am. He was, like”—she

broke into a wishy-washy voice — ‘Marriage, it doesn’t mean anything, it’s really how you feel.’

And I was, like, ‘Yeah, right.’” (Jim Geraghty, “The Campaign Spot,” March 5, 2008)

At Obama’s wedding, his new brother-in-law, Craig Robinson, who had been an athlete at

Princeton, pulled him aside and inquired about his plans. Obama ‘“…said, ‘I think I’d like to teach

at some point in time, and maybe run for public office,” recalls Robinson, who assumed Obama

meant he’d like to run for city alderman. “He said no — at some point he’d like to run for the U.S.

Senate. And then he said, ‘Possibly even run for President at some point.’ And I was like, ‘Okay,

but don’t say that to my Aunt Gracie.’ I was protecting him from saying something that might

embarrass him.”’25 Obama did not tell his brother in law that his self and his career were controlled

assets of the Trilateral Commission, his sponsors.

MICHELLE OBAMA AS A CREATURE OF THE CORRUPT DALEY MACHINE

Michelle had made her way in the world as an asset of the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine,

the Daley family machine. She was in her own way a ward heeler and wheel horse for Daley’s city

hall apparatus, with one key contact being Valerie Jarrett, a political fixer on the make. ‘Obama

went straight from Princeton to Harvard Law School. After graduating, she became a junior

associate, specializing in intellectual property law, at the Chicago firm of Sidley & Austin. She

worked there for three years, eventually becoming, as she says in her stump speech, disenchanted

with “corporate America.” Valerie Jarrett hired her as an assistant to the mayor, Richard Daley. “In

the planning department, part of her job was to help businesses solve problems,” Jarrett told me.

Sort of like a one-woman 311? “No, a 911,” Jarrett responded. “She made problems go away just

that fast.”

In 1993, she was appointed the founding director of the Chicago office of a public-service

program called Public Allies, which places young adults from diverse backgrounds in paid

internships with nonprofit organizations. An early appearance in the Chicago Tribune was in an

article about Gen X-ers. Obama told the reporter, “I wear jeans, and I’m the director.” Michelle and

Barack met at Sidley & Austin, when she was assigned to advise him during a summer job.

Michelle’s co-workers warned her that the summer associate was cute. “I figured that they were just

impressed with any black man with a suit and a job,” she later told Barack.’ (New Yorker, March

11, 2008) We see that Michelle, too, has a record of serving the foundations. Among other things,

Michelle embodies the fascist potential of generation X, which is an echo of the Lost Generation

born between 1885 and 1905 – the generation that gave the world Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin even

as it founded fascism.

THE BLACK OVERCLASS RAGE OF MICHELLE OBAMA

Reporters, even the drooling acolyte types, have observed that inordinate rage of the wealthy

elitist lawyer Michelle Obama. Early in 2008, she said that she wanted to assault and maim former

President Clinton: ‘In Wisconsin, I asked her if she was offended by Bill Clinton’s use of the phrase

“fairy tale” to describe her husband’s characterization of his position on the Iraq War. At first,

Obama responded with a curt “No.” But, after a few seconds, she affected a funny voice. “I want to

rip his eyes out!” she said, clawing at the air with her fingernails. One of her advisers gave her a

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 121

nervous look. “Kidding!” Obama said. “See, this is what gets me into trouble.”’ (New Yorker,

March 11, 2008) For Michelle, Bill was obviously a monster.

Michelle is famous for her diagnosis that America is a mean country, which appeared for the

first time in the New Yorker: ‘Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008,

and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are

“guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of

struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks

are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Fortyfour!”’

(New Yorker, March 11, 2008) It is of course true that the US standard of living has been cut

by about two thirds over the last four decades, so Michelle is doubtless correct in that abstract sense.

It is the part about “cynics, sloths, and complacents” that needs examination. If you want to attack

the causes for the immiseration of America, then you should get busy attacking Wall Street, the

Federal Reserve, and their political puppets. But Michelle does not do this at all. She attacks the

supposed moral inferiority of the American people, while letting Wall Street off the hook along

with all the other power centers. The decline of the country becomes a matter of purely individual

responsibility, setting the stage, one senses, for a demand of austerity and sacrifice so as to make

expiation.

Spengler of the Asia Times argues that the real nature of Obama’s emotional makeup can be seen

most readily by looking at Michelle. Obama has learned to dissemble, but could not hide the criteria

that he used when choosing a wife. Michelle is a bubbling cauldron of racial hatred, and this pot has

boiled over from time to time during the campaign. This is the most important evidence that Obama

himself is also a compulsive hater. Obama, says Spengler, tries to hide this,

but Michelle Obama is a living witness. Her February 18 comment that she felt proud of her

country for the first time caused a minor scandal, and was hastily qualified. But she meant it,

and more. The video footage of her remarks shows eyes hooded with rage as she declares:

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country and not just because

Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been

desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my

frustration and disappointment.”

The desperation, frustration and disappointment visible on Michelle Obama’s face are not new

to the candidate’s wife; as Steve Sailer, Rod Dreher and other commentators have noted, they

were the theme of her undergraduate thesis, on the subject of “blackness” at Princeton

University. No matter what the good intentions of Princeton, which founded her fortunes as a

well-paid corporate lawyer, she wrote,

“My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘Blackness’ than ever

before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my

White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus;

as if I really don’t belong.” (Spengler, Asia Times, Feb. 26, 2008)

OBAMA BITCH-SLAPPED IN PUBLIC BY MICHELLE

Michelle has also been prodigal in her public abuse of Obama – a jarring note which was

extremely incongruous during the earlier, more seraphic phase of Obama’s campaign, before the

scandals and dossiers began to emerge. For the cynical central European Spengler, an experienced

man of the world, this is an index of Michelle’s vast power. Spengler observes:

122 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Never underestimate the influence of a wife who bitch-slaps her husband in public. Early in

Obama’s campaign, Michelle Obama could not restrain herself from belittling the senator.

“I have some difficulty reconciling the two images I have of Barack Obama. There’s Barack

Obama the phenomenon. He’s an amazing orator, Harvard Law Review, or whatever it was, law

professor, best-selling author, Grammy winner. Pretty amazing, right? And then there’s the

Barack Obama that lives with me in my house, and that guy’s a little less impressive,” she told a

fundraiser in February 2007.

“For some reason this guy still can’t manage to put the butter up when he makes toast, secure

the bread so that it doesn’t get stale, and his five-year-old is still better at making the bed than

he is.” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd reported at the time, “She added that the TV

version of Barack Obama sounded really interesting and that she’d like to meet him sometime.”

Her handlers have convinced her to be more tactful since then.

“Frustration” and “disappointment” have dogged Michelle Obama these past 20 years, despite

her US$300,000 a year salary and corporate board memberships…. Obama’s choice of wife is a

failsafe indicator of his own sentiments. Spouses do not necessarily share their likes, but they

must have their hatreds in common. Obama imbibed this hatred with his mother’s milk.’

(Spengler, Asia Times, Feb. 26, 2008)

MICHELLE OBAMA: THE THESIS OF SELF-ABSORPTION

In 1985, in order to graduate from Princeton with her AB in sociology, Michelle had to submit a

senior thesis, which was entitled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” It is filed

under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson. It is 96 pages long, and reposes in the Mudd

Library on campus. This thesis attracted much attention when it was “temporarily withdrawn” from

Princeton’s library until after the November 2008 election. Some extracts had appeared previously

in the Newark Star Ledger. Because of Obama’s standard vapid rhetoric about hope, change, and

the new politics, the attempt to suppress Michelle’s thesis appeared at once as a cynical act of

stonewalling. Michelle looked very much like the super-secretive George Bush. Jonah Goldberg

reported on National Review Online, “A reader in the know informs me that Michelle Obama’s

thesis ... is unavailable until Nov. 5, 2008, at the Princeton library. I wonder why.” “Why a

restricted thesis?” chimed in Louis Lapides on his site, Thinking Outside the Blog. “Is the concern

based on what’s in the thesis? Will Michelle Obama appear to be too black for white America or not

black enough for black America?” Princeton librarians were so pestered by those wanting to see the

infamous thesis that they started reading their refusal from a script. Princeton media officers joined

in the stonewall claiming it is “not unusual” for a thesis to be restricted and refusing to discuss “the

academic work of alumni.” The embarrassment for Obama became so great that he decided to

release the thesis to the Politico, which is controlled by the reactionary Allbritton interests.26

The thesis deals mainly with Michelle’s own cahier de doléances of racist slights and her racebased

world outlook. “My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my

‘blackness’ than ever before,” she states in the introduction. “I have found that at Princeton, no

matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward

me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong. Regardless of the

circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will

always be black first and a student second.” “I feel” is her pole star and compass as she goes

through life. She is an extreme example of the radical subjectivist world view of late AngloIII:

Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 123

American imperialism. She offers no analysis of conditions in the ghetto, or ideas for recovery,

reconstruction, and reform. Her axiomatic standpoint is her own greedy and infantile ego.

At that point in her life, Michelle thought that her future career after Princeton would bring her

towards “further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will

only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.” “In

defining the concept of identification or the ability to identify with the black community,” Michelle

elaborates, “I based my definition on the premise that there is a distinctive black culture very

different from white culture.” This is of course the central tenet of the pork-chop nationalist

position. It is not a scientific analysis of culture. It is rather a rhetorical strategy and political pose

for extracting more and better concessions from the affirmative action system, which has left two

thirds to three quarters of the black community in poverty for the last 40 years, since the system was

put in place by Nixon and George Shultz, his Secretary of Labor.

MICHELLE SHOCKED TO FIND WEALTHY SNOBS AT PRINCETON!

For this affirmative action method to work, it is indispensable that grievances be kept alive and

at the center of attention; if one is to be a beneficiary, one must always be a victim. Michelle writes,

with dubious orthography: “Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and

academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their

enrollments.” Warming to the victimhood that this analysis offers, she goes on to complain that

Princeton in 1985 had only five black tenured professors on its faculty. The Afro-American studies

program “is one of the smallest and most understaffed departments in the university.” There was

only one campus group “designed specifically for the intellectual and social interests of blacks and

other third world students.” Today her pose is that she is a typical home girl of the south side

Chicago ‘hood; before that, she was from the third world, as we see here. The stance is determined

by the object she is seeking at that moment. She strove mightily to get into Princeton, but she now

finds the place “infamous for being racially the most conservative of the Ivy League universities.” If

she had wanted to avoid wealthy snobs, why then did she choose Princeton in the first place? Was

she a complete fool? If she wanted third-world students, she could have headed for a dozen ultraleft

campuses. What Michelle is evidently seeking here is the pose of going to Princeton and

scorning the place at the same time, the better to enhance her status as a person who has secured the

invidious best, but rejected it as not good enough.

At this time Michelle was interested in the work of sociologists James Conyers and Walter

Wallace, who delved into white-black community relations. These two discussed the “integration of

black official(s) into various aspects of politics” and notes “problems which face these black

officials who must persuade the white community that they are above issues of race and that they

are representing all people and not just black people,” instead of seeking to build up “two separate

social structures.” This is the delicate question of how to make the transition from the affirmative

action black nationalist stance necessary to secure grants and set-asides, to the more inclusive

posture that would be necessary to run for office in any constituency not dominated by blacks.

Michelle had no solution for this problem then; the solution has been supplied by Axelrod, who

discovered that messianic platitudes and vapid utopian sloganeering about non-partisanship, hope,

and change would allow this shift to be carried out while duping the gullible and guilt-ridden white

liberals, who, after all, were eager to be fooled.

Michelle mailed out an 18-question survey to a sample of 400 black Princeton graduates, asking

them to estimate the amount of time and “comfort” level spent interacting with blacks and whites

124 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

before they went to Princeton, while they were on campus, and after graduation. Michelle also

asked about their religious beliefs, living arrangements, careers, role models, economic status, and

attitudes towards the black underclass. She asked the respondents to specify whether they agreed

more with a “separationist and/or pluralist” viewpoint or an “integrationist and/or assimilationist”

ideology. About 90 alumni sent back the questionnaires, yielding a response rate of about 22

percent. Michelle wrote that she was disappointed with the answers, since they indicated a

weakening of the race-based or Völkische Identität of the black Princetonians surveyed. Michelle

complained: “I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of

identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton

alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black

community. However, these findings do not support this possibility...” (Politico.com, February 23,

2008)27

With this, Michelle had discovered that social reality was not in conformity with the race-based

view of life she had assumed as part of her quest for upward mobility under conditions of

affirmative action. Even her small sample suggested that race was an empty construct, that racial

solidarity could not function as the organizing principle of life, and that racialist or racist thinking

was above all alien to lived social reality. She was not pleased. Concerning the abysmal quality of

her work in the strict academic sense, the less said the better.

Michelle Obama is thus revealed to have been a self-absorbed, self-centered, self-obsessed, selfserving,

and self-righteous undergraduate. We can perhaps detect here an egomania or megalomania

which is evidently the psychological basis of her marriage with Obama: they both imagine

themselves as the centers of the world. The questionnaire was of course a mere formality, serving to

mask Michelle’s intense preoccupation with her own radically subjective feeling states. She was

interesting in delving into herself, and the forms she sent out and compiled were but a fig leaf in

that obsessively introspective process. She lacks any sense of reality, since she forgets that she is in

a position where she is envied by the vast majority of college youth; she needs to portray herself as

a victim of something, be it slights real or imagined. She also has no gratitude for the special

privileges that have been given her through no merit of her own.

Michelle Obama’s odious personality may well emerge as a telling argument in any future

debate about the viability of affirmative action as against color-blind, class-based programs that

recognize class, poverty, and exclusion, and no longer racial discrimination, as the critical problem

of US society. Michelle will become the poster child for abolishing quotas, preferences, set asides,

and the entire affirmative action apparatus. The argument will be that no system which has

produced such a person deserves to be perpetuated, while 60% or 70% of black America remains in

the despair of the inner city ghetto. Michelle can thus safely be said to constitute a huge

vulnerability among the many huge vulnerabilities of the Obama campaign. If we look back to

Jimmy Carter, we can perhaps see how dangerous a person like Michelle can become when she is

unleashed on the national stage, as she necessarily will be.

MICHELLE OBAMA: HATING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Speaking at a rally in Wisconsin on February 18, 2008 Michelle delivered the lines which have

made her infamous: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and

not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.” This was

an element in her standard stump tirade on several subsequent occasions, leaving no doubt that she

really meant it and meant to say it. If nothing else, it was a catastrophic failure of deception and

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 125

concealment: Michelle cannot contain her own assiduously cultivated rage, even when the

expression of that rage becomes destructive to her and a threat to her consuming ambition.

National pride and national honor are not a bad thing. Honor, in fact, is the one ything that

humans cannot live without. Like everything else, much depends on how it is used. The American

New Deal state created by Franklin D. Roosevelt with the help of the sit-down strikers and the trade

union organizers represented the most advanced form of human organization ever seen. The New

Deal state battled the Great Depression, defeated Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, and fascism, kept the UK

and USSR on their feet through Lend-Lease, contained and frustrated Stalin and Mao, unlocked the

secrets of the atom, and put humans on the moon. Abraham Lincoln was the greatest man of the

nineteenth century, and, together with Russia and Prussia, saved the world from the uncontested

universal despotism of the British Empire under Lord Palmerston. There was a dark side – generally

the handiwork of the finance oligarchs, north and south, yet there was much to be proud of. But not

for the racist Michelle Obama, partly because Michelle is also a postmodernist and multiculturalist.

Postmodernism holds that any conception of human greatness is an illusion, an obscene distortion of

human pettiness, fecklessness, and mediocrity. Nobody is a hero to a postmodernist – not because

there are no heroes and heroines, but because the postmodernist is too crabbed, deformed, and

envious to admit the category of human greatness in any form. Michelle has a perfect right to her

wretched opinions, but she has no right to take them to the White House and make it into the

bordello of world history.

Why does the super-privileged wealthy elitist Michelle hate the United States and the American

people? Partly, one thinks, because she forgets the largesse and holds fast to the memory of the

adversities. On February 29, 2008 Michelle visited Zanesville, Ohio, where she greeted some local

women at a local day care center. Michelle launched into sententious nostrums sharply contradicted

by her own greedy, rapacious, and social-climbing lifestyle: “We left corporate America, which is a

lot of what we’re asking young people to do,” she tells the women, not mentioning that she works

for the ultra-reactionary, Rockefeller-founded University of Chicago, and sits on the boards of jobdestroying

corporations. “Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for

the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re

encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the

money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond.”

During this same appearance, Michelle demonstrated how out-of-touch she is, by bemoaning the

amount of money she has to spend on piano, dance, and other lessons for her two daughters. The

sum she cited came to nearly one-third of the median household income in Zanesville, which was

$37,192 in 2004, which is below both the Ohio and national averages. Just 12.2 percent of adults in

that county have a bachelor’s degree or higher, also well below the state and national averages.

About 20 percent don’t have a high school degree. Michelle was a multi-millionairess; she was

indeed out of touch. And she wanted to stay that way. She expects the group of women, whom she

could buy many times over, to sympathize with her. ‘“Everywhere I go, no matter what, the women

in the audience, their first question for me is, ‘How on earth are you managing it, how are you

keeping it all together?’” she pontificated to the women of modest means in Zanesville.28

One of Michelle’s favorite themes is that she had had to take out student loans to get through

Princeton and Harvard. She complains about how long it has taken her and Barry to pay off these

loans. She talks about how it has taken them years and years, well into middle age, to pay off their

debts. “The salaries don’t keep up with the cost of paying off the debt, so you’re in your 40s, still

paying off your debt at a time when you have to save for your kids,” Michelle laments. “Barack and

126 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

I were in that position. The only reason we’re not in that position is that Barack wrote two bestselling

books… It was like Jack and his magic beans. But up until a few years ago, we were

struggling to figure out how we would save for our kids.” “We left corporate America, which is a

lot of what we’re asking young people to do,” Michelle typically says, adding that “many of our

bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management.”

Michelle talks a good rap about hard times in America, but she makes it all turn on what has to

be done for her personally, not for the voters; For Michelle, the axiomatic point of view is always

but always herself: ‘Her frame of reference can seem narrow. When she talks about wanting “my

girls to travel the world with pride” and the decline of America “over my lifetime,” you wonder

why her default pronoun is singular if the message is meant to be concern for others and

inclusiveness.’ (New Yorker, March 11, 2008) For obvious demagogic reasons, Michelle also fails

to distinguish between the relative stabilization of falling real wages under Clinton, and the

precipitous decline that resumed under Bush the younger: ‘In Cheraw, Obama belittled the idea that

the Clinton years were ones of opportunity and prosperity: “The life that I’m talking about that most

people are living has gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl. . . . So if you want to

pretend like there was some point over the last couple of decades when your lives were easy, I want

to meet you!”’ (New Yorker, March 11, 2008)

MICHELLE OBAMA: BOUNCER FOR

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO HOSPITAL

Michelle’s job is that of a bouncer or gatekeeper for the University of Chicago Hospital, which

is located close to the edge of the black ghetto. The problem faced by the University of Chicago

managers is that too many sick and dying indigent black people come to their emergency room in a

desperate attempt to get some kind of treatment. Michelle’s job is to push these poverty-stricken

black people back into the ghetto to die in nondescript waiting rooms in poorly-equipped doctors’

offices or dingy substandard clinics there. Her qualifications of this job were that she had to be

black, and she had to be cruel, with no hint of the racial solidarity that she has hypocritically

paraded in public for most of her life. Michelle has made out like a bandit in this cruel and inhuman

line of work. In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the

University of Chicago Hospital, where her title is vice president for community affairs, jumped

from $121,910 in 2004 (just before Barry was installed in the Senate), to $316,962 in 2005, just

after he took office. This does not include the honoraria Michelle takes in from serving on corporate

boards. 29

Michelle’s rapidly expanding personal income has raised more than eyebrows: ‘“Mrs. Obama is

extremely overpaid,” one citizen wrote in a letter to the editor of the Tribune, after the paper

published a story questioning the timing of the award. “Now, what is the real reason behind such an

inflated salary?” Her bosses at the University of Chicago Hospitals vigorously defended the raise,

pointing out that it put her salary on a par with that of other vice-presidents at the hospital. (As it

happens, Obama has spent most of her life working within the two institutions for which she most

frequently claims a populist disdain: government and the health-care system.)’ (New Yorker, March

11, 2008)

Michelle’s role in excluding indigent patients from the University of Chicago Hospital where she works

has also drawn attention from congressional investigators. One such instance: ‘The ranking minority member

on the Senate Finance Committee is seeking information from the non-profit University of Chicago Medical

Center about jobs held by Sen. Barack Obama's wife and one of his best friends,’ reported Joe Stephens of the

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 127

Washington Post. ‘Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) on Friday sent the center a letter saying he was "troubled"

by recent news reports about the hospital's efforts to steer patients with non-urgent complaints away from the

center' emergency room to local clinics. Michelle Obama was a key figure behind the initiative. The letter,

which Grassley released to the public September 2, 2008, does not directly mention the Democratic

presidential nominee, his wife or his campaign. Grassley also asked for financial data, board minutes and

other documents related to hiring, job promotion, business contracting and care for the poor.’ ‘For years,

Grassley has argued that non-profit hospitals should spend more resources on the poor and be more

financially accountable, in return for the millions of dollars they keep each year as a result of their tax-exempt

status. Grassley has periodically demanded financial data from selected hospitals and issued reports detailing

perceived shortcomings. He has also chaired a Senate hearing on the topic.’ Grassley also wanted information

on the hospital’s conflict of interest policy, and also wanted to probe hiring practices, evidently including the

public relations contract which went to Obama spinmeister David Axelrod, and a computer contract that was

awarded to Obama moneybags Robert Blackwell.

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/09/sen_grassley_seeks_university.html

) Here is how the hospital itself advertised a fall 2005 community forum, complete with free dinner, chaired

by Michelle Obama: ‘Michelle Obama, vice president for community affairs at the University of Chicago

Hospitals, will serve as moderator. The South Side Health Collaborative is a partnership, supported by the

federal Health Resources and Services Administration, which is devoted to improving access to quality

healthcare for the uninsured, underserved, and special needs populations. The Collaborative pulls together 13

Federally Qualified Health Clinics, two social service organizations, private physicians, and the University of

Chicago Hospitals. Its goal is to help patients find a medical home, enabling them to build a lasting

relationship with a primary care physician in their neighborhoods. Since the program began in January 2005,

members of the Collaborative have interviewed more than 12,000 patients who came to the emergency room

at the University of Chicago Hospitals for care because they did not have a regular physician. They have

helped more than 1,000 patients connect with a primary care provider, often making an appointment for

follow-up care before the patient leaves the ER.’ (http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2005/20051108-

collaborative.html) The big question was of course whether Barky’s political clout as a newly minted US

Senator had been used to procure the federal grant for Michelle’s exclusion operation, raising Obama’s

signature problems of dirty politics, influence peddling, and graft.

The dividing line between the elite and the mass in modern America comes down to one

question: do you have servants? Bush did, and the Obamas emphatically do. As the New Yorker

reported, “The Obamas employ a full-time housekeeper, and Michelle tries to see a personal trainer

four times a week,” but they claim that they do not also have a nanny. In 2005, “the Obamas moved

to a $1.65-million Georgian Revival mansion in Hyde Park, which features a thousand-bottle wine

cellar and bookcases made of Honduran mahogany.”

TYPICAL PARVENU STYLE

The Obamas, in short, are typical parvenu arrivistes, and they revel in it: ‘The Obamas are

fixtures of Chicago’s philanthro-social scene: there they are, waving from a silver Mustang at the

annual Bud Billiken Parade and Picnic; there’s Michelle delivering remarks at the Alpha Kappa

Alpha Sorority’s Seventy-second Central Regional Conference; there she is arriving at the Black

Creativity Gala with a shopping bag full of “Obama for Senator” buttons. Cindy Moelis recalls

being shocked, after agreeing to host Obama’s baby shower, that the guest list included fifty people.

“Hmmm,” Michael Sneed, the Sun-Times columnist, reported in 2006. “Sneed hears rumbles a mink

coat reportedly belonging to Michelle Obama, wife of Sen. Barack Obama, may have gone missing

following the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s birthday bash at the South Shore Cultural Center.”’(New Yorker,

March 11, 2008)

128 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Is Michelle being criticized unfairly? ‘Some observers have detected in Obama an air of

entitlement. Her defenders attribute these charges of arrogance to racist fears about uppity black

women. While it’s a stretch to call the suggestion that Obama projects an air of self-satisfaction

bigoted, it may at least reflect a culture gap: last April, after Maureen Dowd wrote a column

criticizing Obama for undermining her husband’s mystique, a blog riposte, circulated widely on the

Internet, was titled “The White Lady Just Doesn’t Get It.” The sentiment—that America was in a

mess, and Mrs. Obama was not happy about it—was not a new one, but her unfortunate formulation

instantly drew charges that she was unpatriotic. Bill O’Reilly spawned his own scandalette,

remarking, “I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence,

hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels.” Victor Maltsev, of Rego Park, wrote to the

Post, “Obama wants to be our next first lady? Watch out, America!” Cindy McCain seized the

opportunity to draw a sniffy contrast between the Obamas and her and her war-hero husband, telling

a cheering crowd, “I don’t know about you—if you heard those words earlier—I’m very proud of

my country.”’ (New Yorker, March 11, 2008)

Michelle embodies the condescending, patronizing attitude of the entire Obama operation: it is a

mission to the benighted denizens of Middle America, viewed as ethnographic material. Michelle

has to ask for votes, and she finds that this is beneath her new-found opulence and social prestige:

‘Perhaps Obama’s high-handedness is preëmptive, her way of “claiming a seat at the table”—as she

is fond of calling enfranchisement in the power-brokering structure—rather than waiting to be

offered one. It’s as though she figures she might as well say that she and her husband are all that

before someone can say that they aren’t. And there’s a sort of strategic genius to her presentation of

campaigning as grinding work that takes her away from her family, rather than a glorious tour of the

world’s greatest country that she would be thrilled to be undertaking even if she didn’t have to. She

frequently tells her audiences, “I don’t care where I am, the first question is ‘How are you managing

it all? How are you holding up?’ “The effect, of course, is to set up an expectation of tribute, like

those hairdressers who display all their gifts in the days leading up to Christmas. By loudly voicing

her distaste for retail politicking, Obama makes people feel as though, by showing up, she were

doing them a favor.” (New Yorker, March 11, 2008)

Michelle may well be more devoted to Jeremiah Wright than Barry is. At a recent campaign

stop, her exordium went as follows: “You all got up bright and early just for me?” she asked the

mostly elderly, almost all-black crowd. “Yes!” they roared. Obama continued, “On behalf of my

church home and my pastor, Reverend Wright, I bring greetings.” After warming up the crowd,

Obama launched into her stump speech, a forty-five-minute monologue that she composed herself

and delivers without notes. (New Yorker, March 11, 2008)

The New Yorker, a bastion of pro-Obama devotion, provides some clues to the ultimate sources

of Michelle’s rage, hatred, and hauteur. She is tormented by feelings of inferiority, low self-worth

and self-esteem, and the sense of impending doom. One is reminded of Napoleon’s mother, who

kept repeating “longo mai,” meaning, in her Corsican dialect: Let’s hope all this lasts. People like

this generally try to sock away a stash of money in case it doesn’t last, and Michelle will likely be

no exception.

When the New Yorker began asking about this obvious internal stress, Michelle replied:

“What minority communities go through still represents the challenges, the legacies, of

oppression and racism. You know, when you have cultures who feel like second-class citizens

at some level . . . there’s this natural feeling within the community that we’re not good enough .

. . we can’t be as smart as or as prepared—and it’s that internal struggle that is always the

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 129

battle.” She talked about her first trip to Africa—Barack took her to Kenya to meet his father’s

family—and the realization that, as much as white society fails to account for the African-

American experience, so does any conception of pan-blackness. In The Audacity of Hope,

Barack Obama perceives a vulnerability in his wife, one so closely guarded that even her

brother professed to me never to have noticed it. There was “a glimmer that danced across her

round, dark eyes whenever I looked at her,” he writes, “the slightest hint of uncertainty, as if,

deep inside, she knew how fragile things really were, and that if she ever let go, even for a

moment, all her plans might quickly unravel.” (New Yorker, March 11, 2008)

Napoleon’s mother again. Could Michelle be a candidate for a nervous breakdown, or else for

uncontrollable transports of rage – likely to be couched in racist terms – out on the campaign trail?

We may be close to finding out.

OBAMA JOINS MINER, BARNHILL, AND GALLAND, REZKO’S LAWYERS

Obama went to work for the Chicago law firm of Miner, Barnhill, and Galland. The firm

presents itself on its current web site in these terms: “Miner, Barnhill, & Galland was founded in

1971 and today consists of fourteen lawyers in two offices. Ten lawyers are resident in the Chicago

Office and four lawyers office [sic] in Madison, Wisconsin. The firm has acquired a national

reputation in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development work. In addition to its

practice in these areas, the firm represents a broad range of individual and corporate clients,

providing a wide variety of legal services.” On the surface it was a mix of socially conscious left-ofcenter

causes, therefore, with a good dose of lucrative corporate work, meshing well with Obama’s

neoliberal camouflage profile. But note the “economic development work,” since here lies the rub.

According to at least one account, Obama already knew that he wanted to get elected in the

Hyde Park neighborhood, a region of great sensitivity to the University of Chicago, and thus to the

Rockefeller family and to the US intelligence community in general:

When Judson H. Miner invited a third-year Harvard Law School student named Barack Obama

to lunch at the Thai Star Cafe in Chicago before his 1991 graduation, Mr. Miner thought he was

recruiting the 29-year-old to work for his boutique civil rights law firm. Instead, Mr. Obama

recruited him.

Mr. Obama made it clear that he was less interested in a job than in learning the political lay of

the land from a man who had served at the right hand of the city’s first black mayor, Harold

Washington. Mr. Miner, who had helped with the historic 1983 election of Mr. Washington and

served as his corporation counsel, proved a willing tutor.

The confident younger man “cross-examined” Mr. Miner about how Mr. Washington had

managed to emerge from an election riven by bigotry to form a governing coalition in which he

“got along with all these different types of folks,” Mr. Miner recalled.

“During the course of our talking, it came out that people who knew he was having lunch with

me were trying to convince him that this was the worst place for him to go. He shared this with

me — he was amused,” Mr. Miner said, laughing. “This isn’t where you land if you want to

curry favor with the Democratic power structure.”

It was, however, exactly where an aspiring politician might land if he happened to want to run

for office from Hyde Park, a neighborhood with a long history of electing reform-minded

politicians independent of the city’s legendary Democratic machine. Mr. Obama chose to put

130 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

down roots in the neighborhood after graduating law school and marrying Michelle Robinson, a

Chicago native and fellow lawyer. […]

Mr. Miner was “enormously helpful” in introducing Mr. Obama to the liberal coalition of

blacks and whites that had helped elect Mr. Washington, said Valerie Jarrett, a longtime friend

and close adviser. “It brought in a whole new circle of people.” (Jo Becker and Christopher

Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York Times, May 11, 2008.)

At this critical point in his career, Obama once again seemed to have a guardian angel or familiar

spirit hovering overhead, this time in the form of Thomas Ayers, the august father of Barky’s

terrorist friend Bill Ayers, the aging Weatherman of whom we will have much to recount. The

solicitude of Thomas Ayers and his family, including Bernardine Dohrn, for Obama’s upward

mobility, we stress again, is part of a pattern of foundation and intelligence community intervention

in favor of Obama which started when his mother joined the Ford Foundation, and which became

intense during the years when Obama and Zbigniew Brzezinski were at Columbia in 1981-1983.

Steve Diamond suggested how Obama was hired:

The partner who hired him was Judson Miner. Miner was a well-known left wing lawyer in

Chicago who had been counsel to the progressive black mayor in the 80s, Harold Washington.

But Miner possibly also had ties to the Ayers family. He was law school classmates with

Bernardine Dohrn at the University of Chicago (both Class of 1967). He formed a lawyers

group against the war after graduation and organized a left wing alternative to the local Chicago

bar association.’ (Steve Diamond, ‘Who “sent” Obama?’ globallabor.blogspot.com, April 22,

2008)

Obama also taught in an adjunct teaching position at the University of Chicago, and he has

consistently tried to upgrade this into the claim that he was a law “professor,” a title to which he

never had any right. If he were to go to Germany, he could be prosecuted for Titelmißbrauch, the

abusive faking of academic titles. On March 27, 2007 Obama told a fundraiser, “I was a

constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the

Constitution.” But Obama is an imposter. He has never been a professor, except in the most generic

sense. Obama has been a “Senior Lecturer (on leave of absence)” at the University of Chicago Law

School, which is controlled by his backers and controllers. He has taught courses in Constitutional

Law III: Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process, Current Issues in Racism and the Law, and

Voting Rights and the Democratic Process.

THE CHICAGO CESSPOOL OF CORRUPTION:

OBAMA’S HEART OF DARKNESS

But there was much more than meets the eye at the modest Chicago left-wing law firm now

called Davis, Miner, and Barnhill law firm. Evelyn Pringle has gone back to the time after Obama’s

graduation from Harvard Law School, when he was hired by what then was Miner, Barnhill, and

Galland. Even at that time, Allison Davis was the dominant personality at the firm. And the secret

of Miner, Barnhill, and Galland was that it was Tony Rezko’s law firm:

After turning down the surprise job offer from Rezko, Obama expects voters to believe that he

just happened to get hired at the small 12-attorney Davis law firm, which just happened to

represent Rezmar in development deals. And then a couple years later, Rezko’s companies just

happened to appear on the very first contributions made to the “Friends of Obama” committee

to launch his political career as a state senator.’ (Evelyn Pringle, op-ed news)30

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 131

Another Chicago analyst reminds us that it was Rezko who made Allison Davis a big man

through his patronage:

Rezko got Allison S. Davis appointed to the Illinois State Board of Investment, in control of

billions in state retirement funds. Although Davis has not been charged with wrongdoing, the

feds are reportedly pressing a probe of that agency. Davis is currently the president of that State

Board. Barack Obama was a Harvard Law student in 1990 when he interviewed for a job with

Tony Rezko’s slum-redevelopment firm. He didn’t go directly into the Rezko company. But in

1993 Obama was hired by Allison S. Davis, whose law firm (Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland)

represented Rezko’s operations over the years, while Rezko raised cash for Obama’s electoral

campaigns. Davis became Rezko’s personal financial partner in slum-redevelopment deals,

which were then backed by State Senator Obama. (John Desiderio, Working Life, January 27,

2008)

“Operation Board Games” is the code name for the prosecution of Rezko, joined potentially by

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, and other Democratic and

Republican pols, ward-heelers, and fixers. One of the central points of this probe is the Davis,

Miner, and Barnhill law firm, where Obama was employed. Pringle outlines the case as follows:

The investigation dubbed “Operation Board Games,” into the influence peddling within the

cesspool of corruption that encompasses Illinois politicians from both major parties, has

developed into multiple subplots, many of which feature Barack Obama. They also give the

details of Obama’s involvement in a slumlord business largely operating out of the Chicagobased

Davis, Miner & Barnhill law firm, which hired Obama in 1993, with his boss, Allison

Davis, reaping in the profits with Rezko’s development company, Rezmar. [Pringle’s] “Board

Games for Slumlord” article gives in-depth details of the federal investigation along with the

names of people who are listed as “Co-Schemers” and “Individuals” in the indictments issued

thus far. Therefore for the most part, this article will refer to all the scams collectively as what

prosecutors refer to as “pay-to-play” schemes. The Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland law firm,

where Obama worked for nearly a decade, served as a hub for a slew of slumlord deals, many

that benefited the firm’s founder, Allison Davis, and Obama’s claims that he knew nothing

about the inner workings of this small firm, represent an insult to the intelligence of the

American public…. Allison Davis, Obama’s boss at the law firm, is also listed in legal

documents as playing a part in setting up a major extortion attempt in the Board Games case.

(Pringle, oped news)

A recent expose published in the Boston Globe also points directly to Obama’s choice of law

firms to work for not as a selfless gesture of idealistic commitment, but rather as an entrée into the

sleazy world of Chicago graft:

Allison Davis, Obama’s former law firm boss, dabbled in development for years while he

worked primarily as a lawyer. He participated in the development of Grove Parc Plaza. And in

1996, Davis left his law firm to pursue a full-time career as an affordable housing developer,

fueled by the subsidies from the Daley administration and aided, on occasion, by Obama

himself. Over roughly the past decade, Davis’s companies have received more than $100

million in subsidies to renovate and build more than 1,500 apartments in Chicago, according to

a Chicago Sun-Times tally. In several cases, Davis partnered with Tony Rezko. In 1998 the two

men created a limited partnership to build an apartment building for seniors on Chicago’s South

Side. Obama wrote letters on state Senate stationery supporting city and state loans for the

project. In 2000 Davis asked the nonprofit Woods Fund of Chicago for a $1 million investment

132 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

in a new development partnership, Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners. Obama, a member of

the board, voted in favor, helping Davis secure the investment. (Binyamin Appelbaum, “Grim

proving ground for Obama’s housing policy,” Boston Globe, June 27, 2008)

OBAMA: THE MOST CORRUPT SINCE HARDING? OR SINCE GRANT?

It was a form of corruption which siphoned off immense quantities of public resources in order

to slake the greed of a very small group of insiders, wheel horses, and fixers. In Pringle’s

evaluation, Barack Obama has a long history of working with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and

governors of Illinois, including the current Governor Rod Blagojevich, in doling out government

funding for housing development in Chicago. His history is hardly a model of success, except for

the hundreds of millions in profits made by the chosen few slumlords. Less than a year ago, in the

April 26, 2007, Chicago Sun-Times, Fran Spielman reported that Chicago aldermen were accusing

the Daley administration “of being asleep at the switch while low-income housing projects

developed by the now-indicted Tony Rezko collapsed into disrepair…The spigot of loans, grants

and tax credits should have been cut off when the first of 30 taxpayer-supported Rezko buildings in

Chicago fell into disrepair, the aldermen said,” according to the report.’ Obama’s resume is

notoriously thin, but it already contains an ample dossier of graft, corruption, and malfeasance in

office.

Obama’s corruption, starting with the beginning of his law practice in Chicago, also has

implications for the future of US housing policy for lower income groups, sure to be a key item in

the wake of the mortgage crisis, and the collapse of the housing industry as it had existed since the

Carter years. According to Pringle, there are already signs that Obama wants to bring the

discredited, scandalous, and failed Chicago model to Washington, where he can launch a new phase

of gangsters and racketeers of the Rezko-Auchi stripe feeding at the public trough. Pringle foresees

that

Obama now wants to bring this dog and pony show to Washington. I can see it now. His former

boss, Allison Davis, at the Davis, Miner & Barnhill law firm, that served as a hub for Rezko’s

thriving slumlord business for a decade before Davis quit and became partners with Rezko, will

be appointed to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Davis and his

partners, which include his sons Jared and Cullen, have received more than $100 million in

taxpayer subsidies to build and rehab apartments and homes over the past 10 years and have

made at least $4 million in development fees, according to the Times. “Davis has gotten deal

after deal from the mayor, helping to make Davis one of the city’s top developers,” Tim Novak

noted in the November 7, 2007 Sun-Times. There’s already a plan in place to guarantee that the

Chicago model of “community development” is carried out in the White House. In his “Plan to

Fight Poverty in America,” Obama says, “we should create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund

to develop affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods.” The Plan will create a “White

House Office of Urban Policy” to develop a strategy for metropolitan America, and Obama will

appoint a Director of Urban Policy who will report directly to him, as president, to “coordinate

all federal urban programs,” the Plan states. Mayor Daley will probably be hired for this gig.

The Plan explains that Obama will task his new Director “to work across federal agencies and

with community and business leaders to identify and address the unique economic development

barriers of every major metropolitan area in the country.” (Pringle, oped news)

The last big scandal at HUD goes back to the tenure of “Silent Sam” Pierce, an African-

American who was appointed by Reagan. In this case, HUD official Deborah Gore Dean, a cousin

III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 133

of later Vice President Al Gore, was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the federal government,

plus perjury, and did some jail time. Sam Pierce was manifestly involved in mismanagement, abuse

and political favoritism, but an independent counsel was unable to get the goods on him. This gives

us the merest inkling of what an Obama administration may have in store. It may prove to be the

most corrupt administration since Warren Gamaliel Harding, almost a century ago.

Obama will doubtless seek to portray any abuses as the inevitable by-products of his valiant

attempt to redress the balance of minority oppression. Indeed, his legal colleagues appear to be

consummate masters in the gaming of the system of quotas, set-asides, preferences, and other

mechanisms of discrimination which have grown up under the aeges of the post-Nixon affirmative

action policies. As Pringle points out,

An example of the Chicago version of a minority-owned business is DV Urban Realty Partners,

where Allison Davis, who is amillionaire many times over, owns 51%, and Robert Vanecko,

Mayor Daley’s nephew, owns 49%. First of all, “Barack Obama you are no Robert Kennedy,”

and we’re still asking the question because the careers of politicians like Obama are funded by a

political mafia which has turned helping the poor into a cottage industry. Cursory review of

Illinois campaign records shows Allison Davis and his family members giving close to $16,000

to Obama’s presidential campaign. The Sun-Times reports that Davis has donated more than

$400,000 to dozens of political campaigns, and the top beneficiaries include Mayor Daley,

Blagojevich and Obama.” (Pringle, op-ed news)

It was also thanks to the Davis, Miner & Barnhill law firm that Obama was able to forge an

additional set of links with the Chicago foundation community, starting with the Woods Fund.

Pringle shows that Obama began serving on the board of Woods Fund, a Chicago charity

foundation, in 1993, the same year he was hired by Davis’ law firm. In 2000, Davis went to the

foundation to help fund his plans to build low income housing. Obama voted to invest $1 million

with Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners, a $17 million partnership that Davis still operates,

according to a report by Novak in the November 29, 2007 Sun-Times. [Daley hack Martin] Nesbitt

is also vice president of the Pritzker Realty Group, where he procures new real estate investment

opportunities, retail investments and developments for the Pritzker Group….’ This is Martin

Nesbitt, a top official of the Chicago Housing Authority, where the slogan on the logo reads

“Change” – no doubt to comfort Rezko’s victims.31 A quick trip to the Huffington Post site showed

tens of thousands of dollars donated to Obama from people with the last name Pritzker in the

Chicago area,’ with many from the Pritzker clan. Penny Pritzker, whose family controls Hyatt

Hotels, is the National Finance Chair for the Obama campaign, and presides over Obama’s

equivalents of the Bush Pioneers or Rangers. The party label may change, but the plutocracy

remains. As for Nesbitt, he has been showing up in television profiles of Obama as a distinguished

commentator on issues like Barky’s anguish when he was forced to part company with Jeremiah

Wright, and so forth; Nesbitt is never asked about shady dealings in Chicago.

CHAPTER IV: APPRENTICESHIP WITH FOUNDATIONFUNDED

TERRORISTS: AYERS AND DOHRN

“We must be alert to the CIA agents who would promote the polarization of our society. We

must examine the evidence which indicates that fake revolutionaries, who are inciting

insurrection in our cities, have had their pockets and minds stuffed by the CIA.” – Vincent

Salandria, 1971.

“How could we have done the FBI’s work better for them?” –Mark Rudd, Weatherman leader.

“You don’t have to be a cop to do a cop’s work.” – Ward Churchill, ex-Weatherman

“God, what a great country. It makes me want to puke.” – Bill Ayers, Weather Underground

Public opinion is now broadly aware of the close personal relationship and friendly affinity

which has existed for two decades between the candidate Obama and the rehabilitated but

unrepentant and defiant Weatherman terrorist bombers, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. As

David Axelrod told the Politico, “Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same

school … They’re certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school

together.”32 Ayers has written about his involvement with the group’s bombings of the New York

City Police headquarters in 1970, the U.S. Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. Obama’s

quest for elective office started in 1995 with a fund-raising meeting held at the home of Ayers and

Dohrn. A $200 campaign contribution from Ayers is listed on April 2, 2001 by the “Friends of

Barack Obama” campaign fund. The two appeared speaking together at several public events,

including a 1997 University of Chicago panel entitled, “Should a child ever be called a ‘super

predator?’” and another panel for the University of Illinois in April 2002, entitled, “Intellectuals:

Who Needs Them?” Ayers and Obama are friends. Ayers was the key man in giving Obama his

first big visible and public break in the foundation world, his job as the chairman of the board of the

Annenberg Chicago Challenge.

The basic facts of the meeting at the Ayers-Dohrn abode are these: ‘In 1995, State Senator Alice

Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals

at the home of two well-known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known

nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the

1960s anti-war movement. Now, as Obama runs for president, what two guests recall as an

unremarkable gathering on the road to a minor elected office stands as a symbol of how swiftly he

has risen from a man in the Hyde Park left to one closing in fast on the Democratic nomination for

president. “I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to

learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr.

Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the

informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her

successor.” Obama and Palmer “were both there,” he said. Obama’s connections to Ayers and

Dohrn have been noted in some fleeting news coverage in the past. But the visit by Obama to their

home — part of a campaign courtship — reflects more extensive interaction than has been

previously reported.’33

The period between 1991 and 1995 is the time when Obama assembles his network with its

various components – the politically connected lawyer Allison Davis, the mafioso slumlord Tony

Rezko, and the terrorists turned education operatives in the service of the foundations, Bill Ayers

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 135

and Bernardine Dohrn. It is a group redolent of the foundations and thus of the left wing of the

intelligence community, and it will remain in place around Obama until the present day. Obama

was now preparing for his first run at elective political office. To do this, he needed a base of

activists, supporters, and donors. Obama’s pedigree will be clearly exhibited by the method by

which he chose to go about addressing this task. As we have already seen, Obama can be

considered as a product of the Ford Foundation and its associated satellite foundations. Obama’s

mother worked directly for the Ford Foundation. Obama himself worked for the Gamaliel

Foundation, a satellite of the Ford mother ship. This is his time as a “community organizer.”

Obama’s church was fully stocked with theologians whose careers had been promoted by the Ford

Foundation. Thus, we may say that Obama’s hardware configuration was largely due to the efforts

of the Ford Foundation and its satellites.

The software, as we have stressed, came largely from Zbigniew Brzezinski and his associates in

the Trilateral Commission-Bilderberger-New York Council on Foreign Relations orbit, who had

been training and indoctrinating Obama for almost one and a half decades at this point. Since many

traditional functions of the US intelligence community had been privatized into the world of front

companies and especially the foundations and nongovernmental organizations, we can for purposes

of brevity and clarity label the matrix of Obama’s software as the left wing of the intelligence

community, or the left CIA. This is the network to which Obama quite naturally and indeed

inevitably turned when the time came for him to run for the Illinois State Senate. Over time,

intelligence networks cannot be hidden, since the same persons often appear in radically different

roles. This means that their momentarily announced loyalties and purposes were spurious and

fictitious: what counted all along was their loyalty to the intelligence network to which they belong.

Obama wanted to represent that part of Southside Chicago which is called Hyde Park, a

neighborhood which is split between the comfortable homes of professors at the University of

Chicago on the one hand, and a brutal and impoverished black inner-city ghetto on the other. Hyde

Park is a neighborhood split by fault lines of racial tension. The political importance of the

University of Chicago for the US intelligence community can hardly be overestimated. The

University of Chicago’s troubled frontier with the black ghetto has been something of a concern to

the US ruling financier oligarchy for some time, since relations there have been so bad that the

university might have to move away, a colossally expensive project. A whole cottage industry of

academic-grade poverty pimps and foundation operatives has grown up to provide border guards for

the line of demarcation between the university and the ghetto. Those who succeed as border guards

and gatekeepers along this line are marked for preferment; the striving Obama power couple are one

example.

Another is Danielle Allen, who (like Bernardine Dohrn) has been the recipient of the largesse of

the MacArthur Foundation – in Allen’s case via a coveted genius grant, which is a program used to

promote philistine mediocrities to help dumb down the academic world, according to the general

program of the foundations. Allen has just become UPS Foundation Professor in the School of

Social Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey – she is the first black

fellow of that elite think tank, where the arch-oligarchical operative Bernard Lewis (a key apostle of

the Iraq war) also resides. Lately, Allen has been going on the radio, voicing shrill indignation over

internet attacks on the Redeemer. A recent puff piece on the postmodern Allen stresses her role as a

gatekeeper active in ‘the University of Chicago’s surrounding Hyde Park neighborhood, where

town and gown have a long history of … “interracial distrust.”’ Allen, the article goes on to say,

learned in Hyde Park that ‘it was impossible to ignore the poor and often violent world not far from

campus. Hyde Park today is a racially mixed, mostly middle-class neighborhood, but you don’t

136 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

have to walk far to find real urban blight. In the ‘50s and ‘60s, as the South Side of Chicago was

getting poorer and blacker, the university administration grew increasingly concerned that parents

would refuse to send their children to such a place. There were rumors that the university was

considering moving its campus out of Hyde Park. Instead, it launched an aggressive policy of urban

renewal, relying heavily on draconian eminent domain laws that said that if a private developer

owned 60 percent of a block, it could claim the remaining 40 percent through eminent domain.

Those losing their houses were mostly black, while the university was mostly white. One

consequence of this was a feeling of bitterness and suspicion toward the university that has lingered

for decades. All of this was troubling….’ (Merrell Noden, “At home in two worlds,” Princeton

Alumni Weekly, March 5, 2008) So this is the area where Obama decided to pursue his political

career, obviously as a black-faced gatekeeper and protector of the University of Chicago’s interest

against the black poor.

As the veteran public servant Larry Johnson showed on his noquarterusa.net blog, the truth was

that Obama WAS an employee of a Bill Ayers enterprise for about eight years. In reality, the

terrorist Ayers had been Obama’s boss: “Barack also was essentially an employee of Bill Ayers for

eight years. In 1995, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created to raise funds to help reform

the Chicago public schools. One of the architects of the Challenge was none other than Professor

Bill Ayers. Ayers co-wrote the initial grant proposal and proudly lists himself on his own website as

the co-founder of the Challenge. And who did William Ayers, co-creator of the Challenge, help

select as the new director of the board for this program? Barack Obama. Barack Obama was the

first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. This appointment came at a

crucial time in Barack’s life. He was on the verge of challenging longtime state Senator Alice

Palmer for her job. When Barack decided to run, it is no surprise that he turned to William Ayers

and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, for help in organizing the campaign and in hosting his first

fundraiser in the district. Obama served on the board for eight years until the Challenge ended in

2003. Bill Ayers was intimately involved in the Challenge over this same time period.”

(Noquarterusa.net, April 26, 2008) This was in addition to Ayers’ well-documented role in

organizing the fundraiser that kicked off Obama’s first run for elective office in 1995. The old

provocateurs of the left CIA were now serving as a support network for the next generation of

domestic counterinsurgency operatives.

THE WEATHERMEN’S LONG MARCH THROUGH THE INSTITUTIONS

HAS PRODUCED OBAMA

The University of Chicago is of course the home of the Milton Friedman Chicago boys, the archreactionary

or quasi-fascist economists who dictated the fascist austerity program imposed by the

Pinochet dictatorship in Chile in the middle 1970s, and who have helped destroy or impoverish

many other countries around the world from Bolivia to Poland to Russia. One of them is the

infamous Skull and Bones member Austan Goolsbee, a top economic controller of the Obama

campaign. But the intelligence community also has a left wing face. Here we find the Black

liberation theologian and Ford Foundation operative Dwight Hopkins, who shuttles back and forth

to Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Here also we find the residue of many intelligence

community operations of previous decades, and in this context one group stands out above all

others: the veterans of the more extreme factions of Students for a Democratic Society, the most

important left wing organization of the 1960s and indeed the largest left-wing political formation in

all of American history. Here we find, in other words, a group of left-wing radicals who are well

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 137

advanced in the long march through the institutions, working within the system and achieving

remarkable positions of institutional authority in the process:

‘Today one of the approaches used by these types is the “long march” through the (presumably

“bourgeois”) institutions. (See [a] discussion of it by “Progressives for Obama” supporter, Fidelista

and former SDS leader Carl Davidson.) Of course, the “long march” referred to is that taken by

Mao and the People’s Liberation Army in 1934. Now, Davidson et al. apply the concept to the

tactics of the “left” inside various “reform movements” such as the anti-war movement. Davidson

was one of the organizers of the 2002 anti war rally at which Obama first spoke out against the

war.’ (Steve Diamond, ‘Who “sent” Obama?’ globallabor.blogspot.com, April 22, 2008)

Diamond also notes: ‘Bill Ayers appears to be attempting to lead a similar “long march” in the

education world. Ayers is a vigorous advocate of local control along with a related concept called

“small schools,” most likely because he believes it gives him the potential to build a political base

from which to operate. He has discussed these ideas in speeches and writings on his blog. As he

said in a speech he gave in front of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in late 2006: “Teaching invites

transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educación es revolución!” (Steve Diamond,

‘Who “sent” Obama?’ globallabor.blogspot.com, April 22, 2008)

Some of Obama’s friends were openly terrorists and bombers from the incendiary Weatherman

faction, like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Others did not join the Weathermen in their long

years of underground urban guerrilla struggle: here we find such figures as Carl Davidson and

Marilyn Katz. Assorted leaders of various successor organizations to the Black Panthers and/or the

Black Liberation Army will also appear. The common denominator of many of these figures is that

they were seldom the spontaneous radicalized student militants that they pretended to be, but were

generally elements of pollution: police agents, provocateurs, wreckers, sent in to the radical student

left to do a job of sabotage, discrediting, and crippling.

If Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn had been the authentic left-wing proto-fascist anarchists and

bombers they have always claimed to be, they might well have faced an appointment with the gas

chamber or the electric chair, given their implication in criminal conspiracies which led to the

deaths of a significant number of persons, including police officers. Instead, Ayers and Dohrn have

been rewarded and taken care of by some mysterious force through their receipt of prestigious

endowed professorships in which they now have tenure. Was the hand that rewarded Ayers and

Dohrn the same hand which has promoted and fostered the career of Obama? All indications are

that it was, and that it was a hand attached to the left side of the US intelligence establishment.

Right-wing commentators will rail that Ayers and Dohrn, Wright and Obama are authentic

communists seeking to carry out the revolutionary program of Karl Marx. The argument here, by

contrast, is that all of these figures are synthetic frauds who have been deployed to carry out the

program of finance capital, as articulated through certain key parts of the US intelligence

community who have never concealed their close relations with Wall Street. The difference is

highly important. It is the difference between an ignorant right-wing hallucination which deserves

to be mocked and laughed at, and an actual historical philosophical analysis of the systematic

deformation and manipulation of social life by the immense power of an intelligence community

that boasts a legal budget in the neighborhood of $100 billion, which is supplemented by hundreds

of billions more coming from drug-running, gun-running, slave trading, and other nefarious

activities, plus what the foundation endowments contribute. Only if they are understood in this way

138 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

can figures like Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, and the rest open a window into the process which has

dished up the Manchurian candidacy of Obama.

OBAMA’S NEST OF RACIST AND TERRORIST PROVOCATEURS

The fact that Obama emerges from such a nest of racist and terrorist provocateurs has begun to

dawn on a number of researchers. Steve Diamond writes: ‘The people linked to Senator Obama

grew to political maturity in the extreme wings of the late 60s student and antiwar movements. They

adopted some of the worst forms of sectarian and authoritarian politics. They helped undermine the

emergence of a healthy relationship between students and others in American society who were

becoming interested in alternative views of social, political and economic organization. In fact, at

the time, some far more constructive activists had a hard time comprehending groups like the

Weather Underground. Their tactics were so damaging that some on the left thought that

government or right-wing elements helped create them. There is some evidence, in fact, that that

was true (for example, the Cointelpro effort of the federal government.)’ (Steve Diamond, ‘Who

“sent” Obama?’ globallabor.blogspot.com, April 22, 2008) Correct. The Weathermen were spooks,

provocateurs who knew what they were doing, on some level.

THOMAS AYERS OF THE BOARD OF GENERAL DYNAMICS,

TOP PENTAGON CONTRACTOR AND SPOOK

If we try to identify Obama’s personal patron during the Chicago years, we must conclude that

Obama owed everything to the Ayers family – to ruling class patriarch Thomas Ayers, his son Bill

Ayers the terrorist, to his daughter-in-law Bernardine Dohrn (another terrorist), and to Bill’s brother

John. This is also the finding of Steve Diamond. So, who did “send” Obama? The key I think is his

ties not to well-connected über lawyer Newton Minow … but more likely to the family of

(in)famous former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers.

Obama was a community organizer from about 1985 to 1988, when he left Chicago for Harvard

Law School. During that time a critical issue in Chicago politics was the ongoing crisis in the public

schools. A movement was underway from two angles: from below in black, Latino and other

communities for more local control of schools, and from above by business interests who wanted to

cut costs. For a fascinating account and analysis see Dorothy Shipps, “The Invisible Hand: Big

Business and Chicago School Reform,” Teachers College Record, Vol. 99, #1, Fall 1997, pp. 73-

116 or her later excellent book on the subject: School Reform, Corporate Style: Chicago, 1880-2000

(Kansas 2006.)

A 1987 teachers’ strike brought those two sides together to push for a reform act passed by the

Illinois legislature in 1988 that created “Local School Councils” (LSC) to be elected by residents in

a particular school area. According to Shipps, the strike “enrag[ed] parents and provid[ed] the

catalyst for a coalition between community groups and Chicago United [the business lobby] that

was forged in the ensuing year.” (The full story of this complicated process is provided by Shipps in

her book; see Steve Diamond, ‘Who “sent” Obama?’ globallabor.blogspot.com, April 22, 2008)

The central figure, establishment godfather, and spiritus rector of this entire network is Thomas

Ayers, the recently deceased father and protector of Bill Ayers. Thomas Ayers headed

Commonwealth Edison for seven years, ending in 1980. Before reaching the top job, he helped

negotiate the first labor contract between the energy giant and the International Brotherhood of

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 139

Electrical Workers. He served on many boards, including that of G.D. Searle, Chicago Pacific

Corp., Zenith Corp., Northwest Industries, First National Bank of Chicago and Tribune Co., owner

of the Chicago Tribune. He worked with many nonprofits, serving as the chair of the Chicago

Urban League, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Chicago Chamber of Commerce and Industry,

Chicago United, Community Renewal Society and the Chicago Community Trust. Extremely

important is Ayers’ status as a member of the board of General Dynamics Corp. of St. Louis, one of

the largest US defense contractors.34 This role by itself is enough to certify that Thomas Ayers was

a high-level member of the US intelligence community. Thomas Ayers can be regarded as a civic

leader and trend setter of the upper crust of Chicago society, a high-level political fixer who was

comfortable hob-nobbing with bankers, top executives, trade union bureaucrats, gangsters, and

finally with terrorists like his son.

One of the remarkable things about the Weatherman faction was that so many of its leaders were

the sons and daughters of the US ruling class, and especially of those with obvious links into the

intelligence community, be it through the OSS, the CIA, or the foundations. One always wondered:

were these protofascist anarchists simply acting out their own personal Oedipal rebellions against

mommy and daddy? There is ample evidence of this in Ayers hyper-Oedipal “kill your parents”

outburst. But, at the same time there was always the suspicion that there might be something more

going on: were these spoiled little elitists being sent into the student movement to do a stage before

they moved on to some cushier form of employment, perhaps in the family business? A few of them

ended up dead or serving life terms in prison, but a military career would be no less risky. So there

is always the lingering suspicion that such an internship might have been what some of their parents

had in mind at the beginning.

Believe it or not, the foundation-funded left CIA (or left FBI, as the case may be) has taken care

of Bill Ayers so well that he is now a tenured professor of education at Northern Illinois University.

He may have gone from throwing bombs to tampering with the minds of defenseless young

students, but his program remains the same: to provoke an all-out race war in the United States. As

Steve Diamond has commented on noquarterusa.net, ‘Since the days of Weather Underground,

Ayers has advocated a viewpoint that argues that the fundamental issue in American life is “white

skin privilege” – that white Americans benefit from being white at the expense of blacks. As Ayers’

wife Bernardine Dohrn wrote in the introduction to a 2002 book she co-authored with Ayers and

their fellow Weather Underground veteran Jeff Jones: “One cannot talk separately about class,

gender, culture, immigration, ethnicity, or biology without being intertwined with race, as Katrina

and the systematic destruction of a major black U.S. city re-informs us. We were waking up [in the

late 1960s]. What to do once we had knowledge of the dimensions of white skin privilege? How to

destroy white supremacy? Well, that is another matter. And as burning today as it was then.”’

Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, Jeff Jones, Sing a Battle Song: The Revolutionary Poetry,

Statements, and Communiqués of the Weather Underground 1970 – 1974 (New York: Seven Stories

Press, 2006).

AYERS: “I DON’T REGRET SETTING BOMBS.

I FEEL WE DIDN’T DO ENOUGH”

“‘I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said [to the New York Times]. “I feel we didn’t do

enough.” Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970s as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in

the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The

long curly locks in his Wanted poster are shorn, though he wears earrings. He still has tattooed on

140 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

his neck the rainbow-and-lightning Weathermen logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility

for bombings. And he still has the ebullient, ingratiating manner, the apparently intense interest in

other people that made him a charismatic figure in the radical student movement.” Does Ayers plan

to kill again? “I don’t want to discount the possibility. I don’t think you can understand a single

thing we did without understanding the violence of the Vietnam War,” he said, and the fact that “the

enduring scar of racism was fully in flower.” Ayers admits that he finds “a certain eloquence to

bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance.”’ (Dinita Smith, “No Regrets for a Love of

Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life with the Weathermen,”’ New York

Times, September 11, 2001) Ayers later claimed that his threats to go back to terrorism were “a

joke.” Ayers describes the Weathermen descending into a “whirlpool of violence’ – and, we might

add, criminal insanity. What Ayers is saying is that, from the point of view of his terrorist

controllers and ruling class case officers, it was well worth a few dead cops to be able to break the

back of the protest movements of the 1960s, which is after all the only thing that Ayers and Dohrn

have ever accomplished, apart from some narcissistic preening.

The Weatherman symbol which Ayers bears, depending on how it is depicted, has something in

common with the semi-circle which stands out from the logo of the Obama campaign. According to

his own 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days, Ayers bears on his back the Weatherman logo, a rainbow

with a superimposed lightning bolt. The basic form of this logo was a semi-circle; it can be seen on

the dust jacket of the 2001 hardcover edition of Ayers’ book. It has curiously disappeared from the

later paperback edition. The Obama campaign logo was a blue O, with the lower half filled with red

and white stripes. When seen from certain angles and distances, the Obama logo bore a distinct

resemblance to the older Weatherman coat of arms, especially when it was the all-blue version

rather than the full-color one. In heraldry, one would have said that Obama’s escutcheon contained

a reference to the Weatherman crest. One can imagine Obama, Ayers, and Dohrn meeting in 2005

or 2006 and wickedly chortling about the new design, meant to symbolize the final revenge of the

Weather Underground terrorist killers and butchers in the form of the seizure of power in

Washington by a secret disciple of their left CIA belief structure. It was a risky gesture, since it

risked being recognized, denounced, and exposed. Would Americans ever vote to put a crypto-

Weatherman into the White House? Given the importance of emblems in fascism, this should not be

taken lightly.

At the time he was interviewed, Ayers was 56, and was flogging his self-serving

autobiographical cover story entitled Fugitive Days (Boston: Beacon Press, 2001). Ayers recounted

how he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol

building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972. Is this a confession? No, because Ayers by now has

embraced post-modernism with its categorical denial that any such things as reality and truth exist

or can ever exist: “‘Is this, then, the truth?” he writes. “Not exactly. Although it feels entirely honest

to me…. ‘Obviously, the point is it’s a reflection on memory,” he answered. “It’s true as I

remember it.” Ayers remembers much, and then disremembers it: “‘Everything was absolutely ideal

on the day I bombed the Pentagon,” he writes. But then comes a disclaimer: “Even though I didn’t

actually bomb the Pentagon — we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and

claimed it.” He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he

calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom. No one was killed or injured, though damage was

extensive.’ There is no doubt: Ayers is a post-modernist, a liar. (Dinita Smith, “No Regrets for a

Love of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life with the Weathermen,”’

New York Times, September 11, 2001)

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 141

The terrorist is now a suitably blasé and laid-back professor of education (not a professor of

English, as Obama evasively described him in the Philadelphia debate with Hillary when George

Stephanopoulos asked him about Ayers), and a very influential professor at that. According to the

review in the New York Times, ‘Mr. Ayers is probably safe from prosecution anyway. A

spokeswoman for the Justice Department said there was a five-year statute of limitations on Federal

crimes except in cases of murder or when a person has been indicted.” Ayers might still be

vulnerable on the murder technicality, some might argue. Ayers’ transitional program to the

Weatherman communist utopia was summed up in classically Oedipal terms as follows: “Kill all the

rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s

where it’s really at.” He is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at

Chicago. When questioned about his exhortation to homicide and terrorism, Ayers again retreats

into the postmodern briar patch: if I say terrorism, it’s just a metaphor, a piece of irony! Ayers

comments: “it’s been quoted so many times I’m beginning to think I did [say it],’ he sighed. “It was

a joke about the distribution of wealth.” (Dinita Smith, “No Regrets for a Love of Explosives; In a

Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life with the Weathermen,” New York Times, September

11, 2001) Too bad if you died.

Ayers’ consort is Bernardine Dohrn, the sado-masochistic heroine of new left Weatherman

terrorism who strutted as an elitist dominatrix in a leather mini-skirt on the stage of the SDS split

convention on Wabash in Chicago in June 1969, ready to rumble with the downscale pro-working

class nerds and Maoists of Milton Rosen’s Progressive Labor Party, a split-off from the CPUSA.

Bernardine was the MI-6 leather lady Diana Rigg of The Avengers – with a whip, she could have

started a brilliant career at such establishments as Dominique’s House of Pain. But Bernardine had

come from the left-communist circles around the National Lawyers’ Guild, deployed into SDS to

turn the organization towards lunatic purgative violence, the advocacy of race war in the US, and

speedy doom.

Ayers lived underground as a fugitive from the FBI from 1970 on. He disappeared from view

after his then wealthy elitist/terrorist girlfriend, Diana Oughton, along with Ted Gold from the Mad

Dog faction and the ultra-violent Terry Robbins, all died when their bomb factory, located in a posh

Greenwich Village townhouse, blew up because of their incompetent handling of explosives.35

Between 1970 and 1974 the Weathermen took responsibility for 12 bombings, according to Ayers’

count, and also helped spring narcotics guru Timothy Leary from jail where he was serving time.

This last caper was a piece of crude political theater, and showed anybody with a brain that the

Weathermen were in fact police agents and that the CIA wanted Leary freed to further inundate the

world with LSD under the auspices of Project MK Ultra. Dohrn is now the director of the Legal

Clinic’s Children and Family Justice Center of Northwestern University. Their old friends Kathy

Boudin and David Gilbert, whose child they have raised, are serving prison terms for a 1981

robbery of a Brinks truck in Rockland County, N.Y., in which the Weathermen murdered four

people, including two policemen and two armed guards.36 Gilbert is clearly hoping that a President

Obama would pardon him.

TERRORIST MÉNAGE À TROIS: AYERS, BERNARDINE, WARD CHURCHILL

Ayers, as the New York Times review concedes, was always suspect in SDS because he was the

son of a rich and powerful executive, and was suspected of having intelligence community links.

His father, Thomas Ayers, was, as we have seen, chairman and chief executive officer of

Commonwealth Edison of Chicago, chairman of Northwestern University and of the Chicago

Symphony. The little rich boy Bill Ayers attended Lake Forest Academy in Lake Forest, Ill., then

142 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

the University of Michigan, but dropped out to join Students for a Democratic Society. “In 1967 he

met Ms. Dohrn in Ann Arbor, Mich. She had a law degree from the University of Chicago and was

a magnetic speaker who often wore thigh-high boots and miniskirts,” wrote the Times. In 1970,

after the explosion of the Greenwich Village townhouse, Dohrn jumped bail and failed to appear for

her trial in connection with the Weatherman Days of Rage caper, a piece of absurd political

tragicomedy in which a few hundred Weathermen wearing football helmets proposed to start the

revolution by doing battle with the Chicago cops in the middle of the Loop. The Weathermen had

expected a massive turnout that would have allowed them to rule the streets and sweep the forces of

order aside. The whole lunatic exercise was predictably a tactical failure, and an even bigger

strategic political failure, since it marks the end of the student movement and of the Students for a

Democratic Society. Despite all of its problems, SDS had been by some measures the largest leftwing

membership organizations in the history of this country, and with reasonable leadership it

could have acted as a pressure group to the left of the Democratic Party for many years to come.

But that meant nothing to the Weatherman provocateurs, police agents, and wreckers, who seemed

determined to destroy SDS with all the tools at their disposal.

Later in the spring of 1970, Ayers and Dohrn were both indicted along with other Weathermen

in Federal Court under the Rap Brown law for crossing state lines to incite a riot during the Days of

Rage, and then for “conspiracy to bomb police stations and government buildings.” Those charges

were dropped in 1974, allegedly because of prosecutorial misconduct, including illegal surveillance,

but, some said, because the individuals in question were evidently assets of interest to the US

intelligence community.

FOUNDATIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE FUNDED THE WEATHERMEN

The now obscure but highly detailed survey entitled Carter and the Party of International

Terrorism,37 issued in the summer of 1976 by the long-defunct US Labor Party, alleged the

involvement of a number of foundations in the origins and development of the Weathermen. This

study expresses a heterodox view of the Weathermen which may nevertheless prove heuristic:

… The Weathermen were created as a joint project of the Ford Foundation, IPS, and the

Institute for Social Research (ISR) [at the University of Michigan].38 The group was spawned in

May, 1968 at a “secret meeting” in the midst of the Columbia University student strike.

Weatherman founder Mark Rudd constituted the initial cell around a Ford Foundation grant

under which the group agreed to bust the strike through anarchist provocations. The Ford

Foundation “blank check” was conduited through Tom Neumann, the [step-son] of OSS

ideologue Herbert Marcuse and the head of a New York City IPS anarchist project, “Up Against

the Wall Motherf****r.” Weathermen were constituted as a national faction within the IPSdominated

Students for a Democratic Society by means of the selection process conducted

during 1968-1969 through a series of position papers published in the Radical Education

Project, run by Marcus Raskin and Arthur Waskow. In fact, the position papers (including the

infamous “You Don’t Need a Weatherman…” were synthetic belief structures drafted by

psychological warfare experts at ISR and published under the bylines of SDS leaders like Bill

Ayers and Jim Mellen – both [Ann Arbor] ISR graduate students. SDSers attracted to the

anarcho-syndicalist Weatherman credo were put through a series of well-financed “military

maneuvers” during this period to refine the selection. The Democratic Convention riots in

Chicago: Led by IPS operatives Hayden and Waskow and heavily financed by the Carnegie

Fund ($85,000), the Office of Economic Opportunity ($194,000 conduited through IPS), plus

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 143

similar sums from the J.M. Kaplan Fund, the New World Foundation, and the Roger Baldwin

Foundation of the ACLU. […]

The Fall 1969 “Days of Rage” in Chicago [was] a Weatherman riot financed through a “war

chest” bankrolled by Raskin, Waskow, et al.; also funded through an IPS front called

“American Playground,” through the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) and through the IPS

media project, Liberation News Service. By this point, the Weatherman belief structure was

psychotically fascistic, as demonstrated in the Dec. 1969 ‘War Council’ speech by IPS

controller Bernardine Dohrn referring to the recent Manson family murders’ [cited elsewhere in

this book]. (Carter and the PIT, 121)

The USLP authors explicitly accused the Ford Foundation of helping to call forth violent radical

groups:

The entire Ford operation took on an upgraded character in 1966 with the appointment of

McGeorge Bundy as the president of the Ford Foundation. Bundy’s experience as the special

National Security Adviser to President Kennedy provided for an upgraded interface between the

Foundation’s activities and the overall global warfare policies of the Rockefeller family empire.

Ford virtually orchestrated - along with the subsumed Institute for Policy Studies field

operations - the creation of the black nationalist “radical” apartheid operation, the domestic race

war prospectus, the building up of a nationwide network of urban brainwashing centers and the

creation of a nationwide Gestapo in the form of the Law Enforcement Assistance

Administration. By 1968, the Ford Foundation was openly funding domestic terrorism. The

Weatherman organization represents the most open case, although during the 1968 New York

City teachers’ strike, the Progressive Labor Party, the Socialist Workers Party and the

Communist Party USA, all by that point under Institute for Policy Studies control, were

bankrolled by Ford.” (Carter and the PIT, 19)

It has proven impossible to corroborate these charges using other sources, and the historical

record remains fragmentary and incomplete. The accuracy of some of these allegations cannot be

determined without access to the relevant government and foundation archives, which will hardly

be forthcoming in time to help vet Obama’s closest associates. If the charges made by the USLP

three decades ago are accurate, then the leading Weathermen, including Obama’s friends Ayers and

Dohrn, started working for the foundations more than forty years ago, and continue to receive grants

from many of these same foundations today.

THE WAR AGAINST MONOGAMY: AYERS GOES BISEXUAL

Ayers also figures as yet another homosexual or bisexual in Obama’s life, beyond Frank, Donald

Young, Larry Sinclair, and others. Ayers in Fugitive Days ‘also writes about the Weathermen’s

sexual experimentation as they tried to “smash monogamy.” The Weathermen were “an army of

lovers,” he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male

friend.”’39 If Ayers became bisexual, he may still be bisexual, and this would place another bisexual

or homosexual partner in Obama’s immediate circle, in addition to Wright (accused of closet

homosexuality by Rev. James David Manning of Harlem), Larry Sinclair, and the late Donald

Young, the gay choirmaster of Wright’s church who was found murdered on Christmas morning

2007. When Dohrn was asked about the revolutionary orthodoxy of settling into marriage after

efforts to smash monogamy, Ms. Dohrn said, “You’re always trying to balance your understanding

of who you are and what you need, and your longing and imaginings of freedom.” Ayers chimed in

144 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

that he shared the same conflicts about marriage. “We have to learn how to be committed,” he said,

“and hold out the possibility of endless reinventions.”

Indeed, a good agent provocateur should be able to re-invent himself or herself several times in a

career. A champion in this was Arthur Koestler, who went from being a Zionist in Palestine to a

KPD communist to a Cold War hardline anti-communist, to a Jungian dealer in paranormal and

psychic phenomena, ending up as a voluntary euthanasia advocate. He also changed nationalities

several times, from Hungarian to proto-Israeli to German to British. The best guess is that he was a

British agent from the very early stages on. Ayers, by contrast, still has a ways to go if he wants to

get into the Spy Museum.

WARD CHURCHILL, WEATHERMAN AND PARALLEL LIFE

TO AYERS AND DOHRN

Another key Weatherman supporter who figures in the life of Ayers and Dohrn is Ward

Churchill, who was up to the end of 2007 probably the best known former Weatherman still active

in politics, largely because of his statement noted earlier that the office workers who died in the

World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 were “little Eichmanns,” servants of imperialism who

deserved what they got. Churchill also became infamous as a supporter of the CIA’s blowback

theory of 9/11, which he saw not as a false flag operation by the Anglo-American intelligence

community, but rather as just retribution for the crimes of US imperialism. This tirade had made

Ward Churchill a favorite target of Fox News Channel personalities like O’Reilly and Hannity.

Churchill stated that anyone who doubted the official US version of 9/11 – the 19 Arab hijackers,

Osama Bin Laden, al Qaeda, etc.- was really a racist who did not believe that Arabs were capable of

great things – a very imaginative defense of the US government line. Especially in 2005-2007,

Churchill was repeatedly attacked by the reactionary Fox News Channel personalities O’Reilly and

Hannity, and was ousted from his tenured post at the University of Colorado with much fanfare.

Back around 1970, Ward Churchill had been a Weatherman, just like Ayers and Dohrn. Today

he poses as an American Indian activist. A recent critical account of Ward Churchill by Bob Black

alleges that c. 1970,

Ex-Weathermen were even less popular than Vietnam veterans. It took Churchill awhile to find

his way from the warpath to the career path. He became a staff writer for Soldier of Fortune

magazine. Finally he discovered, or invented, his Indian heritage. In 1978 he took on the new

role of professional Indian. By 1983, he was “director of Planning, Research and Development

for Educational Opportunity Programs at the University of Colorado/Boulder.” In plain English,

he was an affirmative-action bureaucrat, a paid race-monger. He made the most of the gig, and

very possibly wrote himself a job description to jump into academia. So he is now, without even

possessing a doctorate, a tenured ethnic-studies professor at the university in the posh resort

town of Boulder. Tom Giago, an enrolled Oglala Sioux born and raised on the Pine Ridge

reservation, the publisher of Indian Country Today, considers Churchill a “white profiteer, a

police agent and a terrorist.”… If Churchill’s indigenism is the radical threat he says it is, why

does the government pay him to propagate it? When Churchill first surfaces, he is killing

indigenous people for the U.S. Government. Next he is a member of the agent-ridden

Weatherman SDS; then a staff writer for Soldier of Fortune; and then a sachem in the agentriddled

American Indian Movement. Next, notwithstanding this unsavory background, he works

as a bureaucrat for a state university, from which gig he is bootstrapped into a tenure-track

faculty position for which he has no qualifications, and soon he is tenured. His noisy presence

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 145

in the Amerindian nationalist movement helps to splinter it. For Churchill, the test of indigenist

orthodoxy is simple: you pass it if – but only for so long as – you promote Churchill’s career. Is

Churchill, as many suspect, a police agent? Nobody’s said it better than Churchill himself:

“You don’t have to be a cop to do a cop’s work.” Indian identity, in Churchill’s windy words,

“is determined by cultural/intellectual/political attributes,” but he is careful not to identify what

these attributes are, for if he did, it would be obvious that he doesn’t possess them.’40

We have seen the race-based divide-and-conquer policies of the foundations at work against the

black and Hispanic communities; Ward Churchill’s operations remind us that similar policies have

been used against the American Indian or Native American parts of the population as well.

Back in 1969, Ward Churchill worked together with Weatherman leader Bernardine Dohrn at the

Chicago SDS National Office: ‘“I had my little medals, I went back to my tractor factory” - and

started hanging out in Chicago at the national office of the leftist Students for a Democratic Society,

where he ran into Bernardine Dohrn, an attractive leader of the Weather Underground, a radical

group that favored the bombings of buildings and confrontations with police in their fight against

racism, the Vietnam War and the ruling class. But the Weather Underground knew more about

Marxism than about bombs. Churchill briefly taught the Weathermen and Weatherwomen how to

make bombs and how to fire weapons - “which end does the bullet go, what are the ingredients,

how do you time the damned thing.”’ Ward Churchill’s instruction may have been faulty, however:

‘Thenthree of the radicals accidentally blew themselves up in a New York brownstone, and

Churchill decided that he had had enough. He became involved with Native American and Black

Panther causes - “I was identifying more with people of color than the white left” - and started

working for AIM in 1972, the year before the Wounded Knee, S.D., shootout between activists who

had seized the village and FBI men who joined the violent confrontation.’ (Denver Post, January

18, 1987)41 One of those who perished in the explosion of the Weatherman bomb factory in New

York’s Greenwich Village was, as we have seen, Bill Ayers’ then girlfriend, the wealthy heiress

Diana Oughton.

This was precisely the time when pro-terrorist professor Ward Churchill was teaching bombmaking

to the Weatherman, as he himself boasted in a 1987 Denver Post interview. The old

Weatherman ideology burns brightly in Ward Churchill, a veteran provocateur and wrecker. Ward

Churchill speaks with much greater frankness about the Weatherman world view than do Ayers,

Dohrn, and the rest of their circle, who need to be more careful of what they say in public. Ward

Churchill lets it all hang out – he is the Weatherman who tells you what the others are thinking

today. And this is what Ward Churchill is thinking these days: “One of the things I’ve suggested is

that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary,” Churchill said in a 2004 interview to Satya

magazine.42 Churchill specifies that he does not want a revolution; things are too far gone for that.

He does not want a new regime to take power in the U.S. Instead, he explained, he wants the state

destroyed. Like Wolfowitz after 9/11, he wants to “end states” – specifically this one. “I want the

state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of

existence altogether,” he concluded. This is indeed the hard line of the academic, foundationfunded,

and intelligence-community linked ultra-left provocateurs. These are the sorts of people

who will triumph in an Obama administration.43 Ward Churchill thus wants to annihilate and to

obliterate the United States. This is a proposal for genocide. One of the central ideas of this book is

that the old Weatherman program of destroying the American people in the service of the

intelligence community, the foundations, and the Wall Street finance oligarchy, expressed more or

less openly by Wright and with special violence and cynicism by Ward Churchill, is in fact the only

possible program of a future Obama administration.

146 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

We stress again that there are not many degrees of separation between Ward Churchill and

Obama. When Ward wanted to join SDS, he went straight to Obama’s friend, neighbor, and cothinker,

Bernardine Dohrn. It was also Ward Churchill who, just back from his tour of duty in

Vietnam in what looks like a branch of Army Intelligence (Long-Range Reconnaissance, the

equivalent of a multi-state killing spree. taught bomb-making to the aspiring terrorist

Weatherpeople in that posh Greenwish Village townhouse. When the townhouse blew up, one of

the dead was Diana Oughton, who was the girlfriend of Obama’s sponsor, benefactor, and friend,

Bill Ayers.(One-degree of separation: Obama’s ultra-leftist backers, Rezkowatch, Monday, April

28, 2008)44

HUMAN WRECKAGE

The years have done nothing to diminish the radical subjectivism of the Weatherman clique.

“Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers had a son, Zayd, in 1977. After the birth of Malik, in 1980, they decided

to surface.” These names may reflect the influence of a general turn in spook circles towards

Islamic, rather than communist cover, which became evident at the end of the 1970s. “Ms. Dohrn

pleaded guilty to the original Days of Rage charge, received three years probation and was fined

$1,500. The Federal charges against Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn had already been dropped.” This

happy ending was doubtless thanks to the efforts of the CIA Office of Security, which interfaces

with most domestic police agencies and courts. When Kathy Boudin was arrested and given a life

sentence for the New York Brinks robbery and the accompanying murders of policemen, Dohrn and

Ayers volunteered to care for Boudin and Dave Gilbert’s son Chesa, then 14 months old, and

became his legal guardians. Dohrn was called to testify about the robbery. When she refused to give

a handwriting sample, she was jailed for seven months. Chesa was without a mother during that

time. Ayers told the New York Times that Chesa was “a very damaged kid.” Given the criminal

irresponsibility of both his biological parents and his adoptive parents, this is no surprise. “He had

real serious emotional problems,” Ayers added. But after extensive therapy, “became a brilliant and

wonderful human being.” (Dinita Smith, “No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of

Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen,” New York Times, September 11, 2001)

Smith recounts: ‘As Mr. Ayers mellows into middle age, he finds himself thinking about truth

and reconciliation, he said. He would like to see a Truth and Reconciliation Commission about

Vietnam, he said, like South Africa’s. He can imagine Mr. Kerrey and Ms. Boudin taking part.”

Perhaps this is something we will see under a future Obama administration. And if there were

another Vietnam, he is asked, would he participate again in the Weathermen bombings? By way of

an answer, Mr. Ayers quoted from “The Cure at Troy,” Seamus Heaney’s retelling of Sophocles’

Philoctetes: “Human beings suffer,/ They torture one another./ They get hurt and get hard.”

He continued to recite:

History says, Don’t hope

On this side of the grave.

But then, once in a lifetime

The longed-for tidal wave

Of justice can rise up

And hope and history rhyme.’

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 147

Is this Ayers’ dark prophecy of a future America ruled by his protégé Obama? The New York

Times review moves towards its conclusion. Reflecting on his varied life in a mellow epiphany of

self-indulgence, Ayers added: “I was a child of privilege and I woke up to a world on fire. And hope

and history rhymed.” (Dinita Smith, “No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a

War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen,” New York Times, September 11, 2001) Too bad

for the dead and maimed cops and innocent bystanders whose blood purchased these epiphanies for

the privileged elitist Ayers, a gravedigger of protest politics in the US all his life.

The question of the continuing close friendship among Ayers, Dohrn, and Obama began to

emerge in February, thanks to the efforts of certain blogs such as noquarterusa.net, and to a

campaign on this issue conducted by the right-wing radio talk show host and television personality,

Sean Hannity.45 Gradually, the Ayers question began to seep into the controlled corporate media:

Joe Klein wrote ‘There are other guilt-by-association problems floating out there: the occasional

over-the-top racial statements by Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright; the fact that Obama has been

described as “friendly” with 1960s dilettante-terrorist William Ayers.”’ (Joe Klein, Time, March 6,

2008) The “friendly” was from arch-mindbender David Axelrod. But Bill Burton, Obama’s

spokesman, said Ayers “does not have a role on the campaign.” Ayers said he had no comment on

his relationship with Obama.

A brief look at the final phase of the Weatherman faction before it disappeared into clandestine

safe houses for a decade or more will permit us to understand the ideology of Ayers and Dohrn,

which is important because these ideas live on today most emphatically in the Obama campaign,

and are in danger of being accomplished under a future Obama regime. The atmosphere that

prevailed in the last days of the legal, aboveground existence of the Weatherman faction is

conveyed in an extraordinary article from Liberation News Service written in the final days of 1969.

WEATHERMAN: AN AGENCY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD

WILL RULE THE USA

We can start with an old article from Liberation News Service about one of the last legal public

events the Weathermen ever held, a kind of Christmas and New Years’ party for agents

provocateurs as the student movement entered its death agony: ‘The Weatherman controlling

faction of SDS held a national “war council” here Dec. 27-30. [1969] About 400 young people

showed up at the gathering—nominally SDS’s quarterly national council meeting—to practice

karate, rap in regional and collective meetings, dig a little music and hear the “Weather Bureau” lay

down its political line for revolution in America. The meeting hall was decked with large banners of

revolutionary leaders—Che, Ho, Fidel, Malcolm X, Eldridge Cleaver—hanging from the ceiling.

One entire wall of the ballroom was covered with alternating black and red posters of murdered

Illinois Panther leader Fred Hampton. An enormous cardboard machine gun hung from the ceiling.

Violence was the keynote of the long hours of talk that began Dec. 27. The distinction between

revolutionary armed struggle and violence for its own sake is a major point of contention between

Weatherman and its numerous critics. The strongest debate centered on the question of who is going

to make the American revolution. Weatherman, along with many others in the movement,

recognizes that the American revolution is part of the world struggle against U.S. imperialism, a

struggle for liberation from both colonial and capitalist oppression. Weatherman’s critics maintain,

however, that Weatherman’s internationalism is based on an analysis that ignores capitalist

oppression in America. Weatherman sees revolutionary change in America as happening almost

solely, if at all, as a belated reaction to a successful world revolution including a successful revolt

148 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

by the black colony inside the U.S.’ (“Weatherman Conducts a ‘War Council,’” Liberation News

Service, Flint, Michigan, Dec. 31, 1969)46

WEATHERMAN: ‘IF IT WILL TAKE FASCISM,

WE’LL HAVE TO HAVE FASCISM’

For our purposes today, the most interesting remarks made that day are probably those of

Weatherman extremist leader Ted Gold, who talked about what the US government and economy

would be like if the race war desired by the Weathermen ever came about. We need to pay careful

attention here, since we are learning something about the way a future Obama regime may treat the

US population:

The logic of that view was expressed in a statement by Ted Gold, a top Weatherman, who said

that “an agency of the people of the world” would be set up to run the U.S. economy and

society after the defeat of the U.S. imperialism abroad. A critic spoke up: “In short, if the

people of the world succeed in liberating themselves before American radicals have made the

American revolution, then the Vietnamese and Africans and the Chinese are gonna move in and

run things for white America. It sounds like a John Bircher’s worst dream. There will have to be

more repression than ever against white people, but by refusing to organize people,

Weatherman isn’t even giving them half a chance.” “Well,” replied Gold, “If it will take

fascism, we’ll have to have fascism.” Weatherman—virtually all white—continues to promote

the notion that white working people in America are inherently counter-revolutionary,

impossible to organize, or just plain evil — “honky -------,” as many Weathermen put it.

Weatherman’s bleak view of the post-revolutionary world comes from an analysis of American

society that says that “class doesn’t count, race does.” White workers are in fact fighting for

their survival, insisted people doing organizing of factory workers in California. They claim

that strikes for wage increases and job security can fairly easily be linked to the anti-imperialist

analysis. But Weatherman denies that survival is an issue for white workers. Weatherman

leader Howie Machtinger derided white workers for desiring better homes, better food and

essentially better lives. Machtinger [argued]: “When you try to defend honky workers who just

want more privilege from imperialism, that shows your race origins.” The Weatherman position

boiled down to inevitable race war in America, with very few “honkies”—except perhaps the

400 people in the room and the few street kids or gang members who might run with them—

surviving the holocaust. That notion is linked to Weatherman’s concept of initiating armed

struggle now and not waiting to build mass white support—that is, a small but courageous white

fighting force will do material damage that will weaken imperialism while the black liberation

movement smashes “the imperialist ___” by itself. Machtinger talked a lot about how the black

liberation movement is so far advanced at this point that the only thing left for white

revolutionaries is to support blacks by fighting cops as a diversionary tactic. Weatherman is

adamant in saying that whites cannot be organized into a mass revolutionary movement. To say

that they can or should, according to Weatherleaders, is “national chauvinism.”… A new

Weatherman catchword was “barbarism.” The Weathermen see themselves as playing a role

similar to that of the barbarian tribes, such as the Vandals and the Visigoths, who invaded and

destroyed the decadent, corrupt Rome.’

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 149

BERNARDINE DOHRN DEMANDS TERRORISM AND ARMED STRUGGLE

A central figure in these monstrous proceedings was Obama’s close friend Bernardine Dohrn,

who found a way to bring the conference to a new low of despicable anti-human barbarism, but

always under left cover:

Bernardine Dohrn, former inter-organizational secretary of SDS for 1968-69, gave the opening

speech.47 She began by admitting that a lot of Weatherman’s actions have been motivated by “a

white guilt trip.” “But we ------ up a lot anyway. We didn’t fight around Bobby Seale when he

was shackled at the Conspiracy Trial. We should have torn the courtroom apart. We didn’t

smash them when Move peace creeps hissed David Hilliard on Moratorium Day in San

Francisco. We didn’t burn Chicago down when Fred was killed.” Dohrn characterized violent,

militant response in the streets as “armed struggle” against imperialism. “Since Oct. 11 [the last

day of the SDS national window-breaking action in Chicago], we’ve been wimpy on armed

struggle... We’re about being a fighting force alongside the blacks, but a lot of us are still

honkies, and we’re still scared of fighting. We have to get into armed struggle.” Part of armed

struggle, as Dohrn and others laid it down, is terrorism. Political assassination—openly joked

about by some Weathermen—and literally any kind of violence that is considered anti-social

were put forward as legitimate forms of armed struggle. “We’re in an airplane,” Dohrn related,

“and we went up and down the aisle ‘borrowing’ food from people’s plates. They didn’t know

we were Weathermen; they just knew we were crazy. That’s what we’re talking about, being

crazy --------- and scaring the ----- out of honky America.”’ (“Weatherman Conducts a ‘War

Council,’” Liberation News Service, Flint, Michigan, Dec. 31, 1969)48

BERNARDINE DOHRN: MANSON MURDERS AS

THE ESSENCE OF THE REVOLUTION SHE WANTED

And what kind of revolution did top Weathergirl Bernardine Dohrn want? It was a revolution in

the spirit of Charles Manson, the demonic protagonist of that year’s grisly Tate-LaBianca murders

in Hollywood:

A 20-foot long poster adorned another wall of the ballroom. It was covered with drawings of

bullets, each with a name. Along with the understandable targets like Chicago’s Mayor Daley,

the Weathermen deemed as legitimate enemies to be offed, among others, the Guardian (which

has criticized Weatherman) and Sharon Tate, one of several victims in the recent mass murder

in California. She was eight months pregnant. “Honkies are going to be afraid of us,” Dohrn

insisted. She went on to tell the war council about Charlie Manson, accused leader of the gang

which allegedly murdered the movie star and several others on their Beverly Hills estate.

Manson has been portrayed in the media as a Satanic, magnetic personality who held nearhypnotic

sway over several women whom he lent out to friends as favors and brought along for

the murder scene. The press also mentioned Manson’s supposed fear of blacks—he reportedly

moved into rural California to escape the violence of a race war. Weatherman, the “Bureau”

says, digs Manson, not only for his understanding of white America—the killer purportedly

wrote “pig” in blood on the wall after the murder—but also a “bad --------.” (At least one press

report explained the “pig” on the wall by saying that Manson wrote that in order to throw

suspicion on black people.) [Dohrn gave a three-fingered “fork salute” to mass murderer

Charles Manson. Calling Manson’s victims the “Tate Eight,” Dohrn gloated over the fact that

actress Sharon Tate, who was pregnant at the time, had been stabbed with a fork in her womb.]

150 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

“Dig it, first they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they

even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!” said Bernardine Dohrn.

This statement by Bernardine marks the maximum in subhuman degradation and degeneracy, a

level of despicable anti-human animus which can match the decadence of any World War II fascist.

Bernardine has lamely attempted to explain that this was all a metaphor, a joke. The Liberation

News correspondent of 1969 took it quite seriously, and so must we today as we look forward to

Bernardine Dohrn’s possible role in a future Obama administration.

WEATHERMAN: THE ‘WHITE DEVIL’ THEORY OF WORLD HISTORY

Bernardine functioned to all intents and purposes as the keynote speaker who set the exalted

moral tone for the rest of the speeches.

Women members of Weatherman held a panel discussion on women’s liberation. The fighting

women, “the women who can carry bombs under their dresses like in “The Battle of Algiers,”

were put forward as the only valid model for women’s liberation. Women’s liberation comes

not only with taking leadership roles and with asserting yourself politically, they said, but also

with overcoming hang-ups about violence.

In between the women’s raps, the people sang a medley of Weatherman songs, high camp

numbers such as, “I’m Dreaming of a White Riot,” “Communism Is What We Do,” and “We

Need a Red Party.” Spirited chants broke out, too: “Women power!” “Struggling power!” “Red

Army power!” “Sirhan Sirhan power!” “Charlie Manson power!” “Power to the People!” “Off

the pig!” […]

Another speaker referred to the white women’s role as reproduced and characterized white

women who bring up children in white America as “pig mothers.”

The “crazy violent ----------” theme was picked up in a long address by “Weather Bureau”

member John Jacobs, who laid out the “White Devil” theory of all world history and traced the

history of today’s youth from the Beat Generation of the 1950s. [Here Jeremiah Wright, Father

Pfleger, Dwight Hopkins, and Otis Moss III might have felt at home.]

“We’re against everything that’s ‘good and decent,’” Jacobs declared. That notion, coupled

with the White Devil theory, formed the basis of what they call “Serve the People --------.”

Serving the people, relating to people’s needs, is a crucial factor in many people’s minds of

organizing white working people in America, so that the revolution will come as class war and

end in socialism, rather than come as race war and end in fascism. (“Weatherman Conducts a

‘War Council,’” Liberation News Service, Flint, Michigan, Dec. 31, 1969)49

But the Weatherman perspective was precisely that there was no hope of revolution against the

financier ruling class, and that in any case race war against white blue collar workers was the thing

that was to be desired and provoked.

OBAMA’S WEATHERMAN CONNECTION: HARBINGER OF SWIFT BOATING

By spring 2008, it has been obvious for months that Obama’s close affinity with and friendship

for some of the most celebrated terrorists and murderers of recent US history was going to cause

him political problems, to say the least. As former CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson

commented, Obama was damaged goods from the moment that the average American heard about

his penchant for associating with known criminals:

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 151

There is now undeniable proof of a longstanding relationship between Barack Obama and

William Ayers. We are not talking about two guys who just happened to bump into one another

on the street. We are not talking about a secret admirer (Ayers) who quietly sent $200 to an

aspiring politician. No, we are talking about William Ayers hosting a fundraiser for Barack

Obama and actively working with him to secure Barack’s first electoral victory in Illinois. But

wait, there is more. Barack and Ayers also served on the board of the Woods Fund. And they

worked together to give money to some other folks, including a group with ties to the PLO. […]

Look at the beating that John Kerry took for tossing his medals over the White House fence.

Ayers did not toss medals, he threw bombs. Real ones. Bombs that exploded. Do you think that

Republicans will ignore Obama’s ties to Ayers? The two were serving on the same board in

2002. We are talking less than six years ago and the record will come out showing some

questionable grants by these two characters. William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be

Barack Obama’s Willie Horton.’ (noquarterusa.net, April 16, 2008)

THE SDS MENAGERIE AROUND OBAMA

The problem goes way beyond just Ayers and his fork-saluting spouse. The Obama campaign

presents the aspect of a storm cellar or assisted-living facility for the burned-out wreckage of the

intelligence community operations of yesteryear. Some of these figures were Weatherman terrorists,

some were simply SDS extremists, some flirted with Stalinism. In July 1996, the New York Times

reported that Marilyn Katz, a former aide to Chicago Mayor Harold Washington and now a wheel

horse of the Daley machine and a supporter of Obama, “oversaw security for Students for a

Democratic Society, a radical group at the eye of the Chicago protests” during the 1968 Democratic

National Convention. There was no “security” in the SDS contingent on that occasion. Ms. Katz

was presumably occupied with organizing provocations to provide cover for the police riot that

ensued.

On October 2, 2002, when Barack Obama delivered his obscure, unrecorded, and poorly

attended but now famous speech at a Chicago antiwar rally, Katz was one of the key organizers of

the rally. On the event’s fifth anniversary, Marilyn Katz, now a member of Obama’s national

finance committee, posted the following statement on the blog of Chicagoans Against the War and

Injustice (CAWI), which she had “put together,” relying upon “some of her old contacts she met

organizing anti-war demonstrations for Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s.” Katz

described how the rally in Chicago on October 2, 2002, was “not organized by a politician or a

recognized political force. It was organized by a loose group of friends, mostly SDS veterans. Katz

was thus key to providing Obama’s only foreign policy credential and proof of his alleged good

judgment – his lame anti-war speech of October 2002, the horse that he mercilessly rode to death

during the 2008 primaries. What would Barky ever have done without his SDS friends?

MARILYN KATZ, SDS VET AND ORGANIZER

OF OBAMA’S OCTOBER 2002 ANTI-WAR SPEECH

Marilyn Katz later recounted: ‘Meeting in a living room in Chicago just ten days earlier, we

chose to act, agreeing that on October 2, 2002, we would assemble in Chicago’s Federal Plaza to

stand against the war. With a gut feeling that other Americans also thought the invasion of Iraq was

foolhardy, if not immoral and absurd, but with no assurance than anyone would come to a

demonstration we agreed that “If we were five, we would be five.” “If we were without any elected

officials, we would be an involved citizenry. But we would take a stand.” But we were not alone. In

152 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

fact nearly 3,000 people assembled in Federal Plaza on that day responding to the flurry of emails (a

new organizing technology for us) that seemingly liberated people from their sense of isolation and

offered them the opportunity of collective action - of community. Black, Latino, White, veterans of

the peace and women’s movements, the 60s, high school and college youth, community activist—a

mosaic of the City. Long-time leaders like Jesse Jackson, Juan Andrade and Julie Hamos and a new

voice.... not yet known to the crowd, to the media or to the nation.... the voice of State Senator

Barack Obama.”50

Katz was joined in the organizing by former SDS president Carl Davidson, like Klonsky

reputedly once upon a time close to the Communist Party USA line, so that Obama was getting help

from “two perennially engaged ‘60s veterans and ex-SDS members,” Jeff Epton wrote December

15, 2003, for In These Times. Katz and Davidson were “key organizers” of the October 2, 2002,

anti-war demonstration. Originating as Chicagoans Against War with Iraq (CAWI), by December

2003 CAWI had shifted into Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. Davidson later commented, “as

the war transformed from invasion to occupation, CAWI activists managed to avoid splits over

sectarian and strategic differences, and committed to stay together and move from ‘protest to

politics.’” In 2005, Katz and Davidson co-wrote a documented entitled “Stopping War, Seeking

Justice.” Davidson is “now a figure in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and

Socialism, an offshoot of the old Moscow-controlled CPUSA,” Cliff Kincaid wrote on February 18,

2008, for Accuracy in Media.

Davidson is also an Obama supporter, now leading Progressives for Obama. On his blog Keep

On Keepin’ On, Davidson recently endorsed Obama’s comments about small town people being

bitter. Katz is attempting to minimize her role in the old SDS. On April 18, 2008, the Chicago Sun-

Times quoted Katz as saying that she “met Ayers when he was 17 and they were members of

Students for a Democratic Society, a peaceful group from which the Weather Underground

splintered.” Katz also demanded that Obama’s relationship with former domestic terrorist William

Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn—with whom Obama launched his political career in 1995 at

the Ayers-Dohrn Hyde Park home— “should not be a campaign issue.” Katz is now the head of MK

Communications and a registered lobbyist with the City of Chicago; she has personally contributed

$1,000 to Obama for America, Obama’s presidential campaign fund. Marilyn Katz and her husband

Allan J. Katz, a shareholder and chairman of the Policy Practice Group at Akerman Senterfitt of

Tallahassee, Florida and a Tallahassee City Commissioner, as well as a Member of the Florida

Democratic Committee and Democratic National Committee, are joint bundlers committed to

raising a minimum of $200,000 for Obama’s campaign.’51

MIKE KLONSKY, FOUNDATION STALINIST

Another Katz and Ayers associate—and Obama supporter—is Mike Klonsky. In 1968, he was

the last pre-Weatherman SDS national chairman and a “demonstration organizer.” Klonsky ‘“would

go on in post-SDS years to form the October League (Marxist-Leninist) and Communist Party

(Marxist-Leninist), part of the new communist movement that emerged [born dead] in the 1970s.”

Klonsky was named by Ayers in the 1990s to head the Small Schools Workshop. In 1996, Klonsky,

like William Ayers, was a consultant for Mayor Richard M. Daley’s “agenda for public schools.”

Until June 25, 2008, when he was jettisoned for purposes of damage control and window dressing

in the course of Obama’s hard right turn after the primaries, Klonsky maintained a community blog

subtitled Freedom Teachers at MyBarackObama.com.

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 153

During the engineered breakup of SDS, Klonsky was a leader of the tendency called

Revolutionary Youth Movement I (RYM-I), a less extreme competitor of the Ayers-Dohrn-Mark

Rudd-Jeff Jones-John Jacobs-Ted Gold Revolutionary Youth Movement II (RYM-II), which

became the Weathermen and later the Weather Underground, otherwise known as Weatherpeople,

Weather Bureau, etc. Klonsky and Ayers appeared for a time as bitter factional opponents, but at

bottom this was simply role-playing, with Klonsky picking up the radicals who were only halfdemented,

and thus not crazy enough to join the kamikazes of the Ayers-Dohrn clique. If Ayers was

known in SDS as a likely spook and provocateur for the intelligence community, Klonsky was

regarded as a submarine for the Communist Party, USA, whose leaders were then in turn controlled

by the FBI. During the lean years that followed, Klonsky tried Maoism.

The cooperation of Ayers and Klonsky in favor of Obama’s seizure of power reproduces the old

CP-anarchist alliance, which was a common wrecking plan for SDS chapters in 1969-1970. When

Klonsky’s role in the Obama campaign’s internet effort became widely known, the Illinois Messiah

was quick to cut his losses so as to avoid the specter of yet another explosive flare-up of negative

publicity on the models of Rezko, Wright and Ayers. ‘No sooner than Global Labor blogged …

about the role in the Obama campaign of Mike Klonsky, former Weather Underground leader Bill

Ayers’ longtime comrade-in-arms from their days in SDS to the Chicago School Wars they fought

in the 80s and 90s alongside Barack Obama, and presto he’s gone. As of this evening, Klonsky is no

longer blogging on the Barack Obama for President website.’ (Steve Diamond,

http://globallabor.blogspot.com/, June 25, 2008)

Another fanatical Obama backer with SDS connections is Tom Hayden, the SDS co-founder

who helped promote the 1968 Democratic National Convention riots in Chicago. Hayden, a former

California state senator and ex-husband of radical chic Jane Fonda, has endorsed Sen. Obama. So

has Jane Fonda. Hayden authored the SDS political manifesto, known as the Port Huron Statement,

which the group’s founding members adopted in 1962. This document condemned the American

political system as the cause of international conflict and a variety of social ills — including racism,

materialism, militarism, and poverty. Instead, it offered the vacuous petty-bourgeois slogan of

“participatory democracy,” while offering no analysis and making no demands for labor rights,

rebuilding the inner cities, third-world economic development, or other urgent economic issues of

the day.

SDS derived from a group called the League for Industrial Democracy (LID), a transparent cold

war anti-Soviet CIA front group made up of right-wing social democrats. LID has a student and

youth branch called Student League for Industrial Democracy (SLID). SLID was running out of

steam in the early 1960s, so the intelligence community decided to re-invent it in the trendier format

of SDS. The name may have been taken from German SDS (Sozialistischer Deutscher

Studentenbund), the successful pseudo-radical student group of Willy Brandt’s German Social

Democratic Party (SPD), which many CIA officers had been able to observe first-hand during their

frequent postings in West Germany, the hub of the cold war.

During the course of the 1960s, large parts of the SDS membership would escape ruling-class

ideological control, which is what gave SDS the potential that had to be destroyed. But the SDS

leadership was confined to narrow cliques with strong intelligence community input, who were

easily able to defeat challengers and insurgents in conformity with Roberto Michels’ Iron Law of

Oligarchy.

Todd Gitlin, the SDS president from 1963 to 1964, has also been well taken care of, and now

serves as a tenured professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University. Giltin is a regular

154 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

contributor to Josh Marshall’s TPM Cafe. He also blogs at ToddGitlin.com. In a new low for

tendentious, pro-Obama pseudo-journalism, Gitlin was contacted April 18, 2008, by The New

Republic to respond to Sen. Obama’s Philadelphia cover-up speech about his hate-spewing pastor,

Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Gitlin had endorsed Obama on February 4, 2008.

Paul Booth is yet another founder and former National Secretary of Students for a Democratic

Society (SDS) and former President of Chicago’s Citizen Action Program (CAP), formed in 1969

by trainees from counterinsurgent Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), according to

Discover the Networks. Booth is a labor skate, acting as assistant to Gerald McEntee, president of

the public employees union AFSCME.

In 1973, “radical activists” Booth and his wife, Heather Booth, founded The Midwest Academy

(MA), a “training organization ... for a variety of leftist causes and organizations,” which

“describes itself as ‘one of the nation’s oldest and best known schools for community

organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.’”

This is the usual coded language for local control/ community control counterinsurgency. Not

surprisingly, one of The Midwest Academy’s funders is the Woods Foundation of Chicago, on

whose board Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) served 1999 to December 2002 as a paid director with

domestic terrorist William Ayers. In 1999, The Midwest Academy received a $75,000 grant

from the Woods Fund. In 2002, The Midwest Academy received $23,500 for its Young

Organizers Development Program. Additionally, in February 2004 Paul Booth contributed $500

to Obama’s 2004 senatorial campaign.’ (“One-degree of separation: Obama’s ultra-leftist

backers,” Rezkowatch, Monday, April 28, 2008)

WEATHERMAN HATRED OF WHITE WORKERS FROM 1969 TO OBAMA

Obama’s top handler David Axelrod told NPR that it was a mistake to rely on white working

class voters in the first place. In a statement dripping with elitist class prejudice, Axelrod observed:

“The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even

to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes.”

This is simply factually wrong, since Bill Clinton won many of these voters. Obama’s campaign

manager David Plouffe was even more categorical that blue collar workers were out of reach. But

these were after all registered Democratic voters that Obama was losing in a Democratic primary.

These very damning statements illustrate the thesis of this book that Obama hates and resents white

working families and blue collar voters. Since white working people represent the absolute majority

of the US population, one must wonder by what system Axelrod hopes to win a general election.

Again, the conclusion must be that Obama really has no plan to win a general election, but will

hope for help from police state forces in the form of scandals which will conveniently destroy his

opponent. This is, after all, the main reason Obama is in the US Senate in the first place – ask the

hapless Trilateral victims Marson Blair Hull and Jack Ryan.

THE WOODS FUND AND THE CIA-CONTROLLED FACTIONS OF THE PLO

The Woods Fund of Chicago, with Ayers and Obama on the board for several years before 2002,

appears to function as a funding conduit for certain US-controlled or US-influenced factions of the

highly factionalized and crisis-ridden Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority.

Whether these US-manipulated factions are violent or moderate is less important than the fact that

they represent CIA tentacles inside the PLO. The fact that various Palestinian or PLO factions are

controlled by foreign states is, or ought to be, well-known. The Soviets had some of these factions.

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 155

The Israelis were known to control a part of the central committee of the Abu Nidal Organization,

run by Sabri al-Banna, the son of the pro-British and later pro-Nazi founder of the Moslem

Brotherhood. Ariel Sharon helped to create Hamas, and so forth. The French and the Vatican are not

far behind. So, Obama is close to the apparatus that funds the pro-US fifth column in the PLO. The

PLO-linked groups funded by the Woods Foundation with the help of Obama’s august presence

also appear to be devices for the social control of the Arab populations of Chicago and the

surrounding areas, which are being managed according to the Hapsburg-style affirmative

action/racial identity counterinsurgency method we have already seen at work against black

Americans, Hispanics, and native Americans.

With Obama helping to get funding for his group, the radical Palestinian professor Rashid

Khalidi helped to set up a fund-raiser for Obama when he ran for congress in 2000.

Khalidi, now the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, and head of

that school’s Middle East Institute, in an interview in Tuesday’s Daily News, said he hosted the

fundraiser because he and Obama were friends while the two lived in Chicago. “He never came

to us and said he would do anything in terms of Palestinians,” Khalidi told the paper.

Nevertheless, one Hyde Park source close to Obama, speaking only on condition of anonymity,

recalled, “He often expressed general sympathy for the Palestinians — though I don’t recall him

ever saying anything publicly.” Khalidi helped to arrange the recent appearance of Iran’s

Ahmadinejad last summer at Columbia University. (Rashid Khalidi, “Middle East Professor at

Columbia University and PLO activist,” The Jewish Week, 2007, noquarterusa.net)

Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia University was marred by the university president’s scurrilous

insults against the foreign leader. In the estimation of this writer at the time, the visit created a

turbulent scene of protests which could have been used as a covering screen to assassinate the

Iranian leader and precipitate a general Middle East war. Thankfully, that had not occurred. But the

question remains about Khalidi’s motives in bringing the Iranian president into the chaotic and

dangerous situation that prevailed at Columbia. Had some case officer told him to do it? Even after

its privatization into foundations and private fronts under Executive Order 12333, US intelligence

still does not pay out its money for nothing. What was it that US intelligence was buying from

Khalidi?

As a pro-Israeli account details,

Ayers and Obama had teamed up for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago

charitable organization. Together, they voted to donate $75,000 of the largesse they controlled

to the Arab American Action Network. The AAAN was co-founded by Rashid Khalidi…

Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, Khalidi denies having been a PLO operative or

having directed its official press agency for six years (from 1976 to 1982).’ (Aaron Klein,

“Obama worked with terrorist; Senator helped fund organization that rejects ‘racist’ Israel’s

existence,” WorldNetDaily, February 24, 2008)

The details on the grants are very interesting:

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the

disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for

which Khalidi’s wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the

AAAN for $35,000 in 2002. Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec.

11, 2002, according to the Fund’s website. According to tax filings, Obama received

compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2001. …

156 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

The $40,000 grant from Obama’s Woods Fund to the AAAN constituted about a fifth of the

Arab group’s reported grants for 2001, according to tax filings obtained by WND. The $35,000

Woods Fund grant in 2002 also constituted about one-fifth of AAAN’s reported grants for that

year. The AAAN, headquartered in the heart of Chicago’s Palestinian immigrant community,

describes itself as working to “empower Chicago-area Arab immigrants and Arab Americans

through the combined strategies of community organizing, advocacy, education and social

services, leadership development, and forging productive relationships with other

communities.” It reportedly has worked on projects with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant

and Refugee Rights, which supports open borders and education for illegal aliens. AAAN cofounder

Rashid Khalidi was reportedly a director of the official PLO press agency WAFA in

Beirut from 1976 to 1982….

Khalidi’s wife, AAAN President Mona Khalidi, was reportedly WAFA’s English translator

during that period. Rashid Khalidi at times has denied working directly for the PLO but

Palestinian diplomatic sources in Ramallah told WND he indeed directed WAFA. Khalidi also

advised the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference in 1991…

While the Woods Fund’s contribution to Khalidi’s AAAN might be perceived as a one-time run

with Obama, the presidential hopeful and Khalidi evidence a deeper relationship. According to

a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the

Democratic presidential hopeful first befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the

university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity. Khalidi lectured at the University of

Chicago until 2003 while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in

2004. Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama’s failed

bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi. Speaking in a

joint interview with WND and the John Batchelor Show of New York’s WABC Radio and Los

Angeles’ KFI Radio, Khalidi was asked about his 2000 fundraiser for Obama. “I was just doing

my duties as a Chicago resident to help my local politician,” Khalidi stated. Khalidi said he

supports Obama for president “because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy

for the Palestinian cause.” Asked about Obama’s role funding the AAAN, Khalidi claimed he

had “never heard of the Woods Fund until it popped up on a bunch of blogs a few months ago.”

He terminated the call when petitioned further about his links with Obama. Contacted by phone,

Mona Khalidi refused to answer WND’s questions about the AAAN’s involvement with

Obama. (Aaron Klein, “Obama worked with terrorist; Senator helped fund organization that

rejects ‘racist’ Israel’s existence,” WorldNetDaily, February 24, 2008)

OBAMA AND THE CHICAGO ARAB UNDERWORLD: ATA “THE RAT”

In addition to such figures as Khalidi, Obama also came into contact with the gangsters, grafters,

hoodlums, and other sociopaths who populate the wormy underside of the Chicago Arab

community. We will talk in a coming chapter about the Syrian-Levantine Antoin Rezko, his fellow

Levantine Nadhi Auchi, and the renegade Iraqi Electricity Minister Alsammarae. Here we will refer

to a smaller fish, but a very significant one: Ali Ata, who was caught up in the FBI dragnet of

Operation Board Games around the Illinois Combine for graft and corruption, which has a division

for every ethnic group in Chicago. Ali Ata, now a convicted felon, gets us very close to Obama: all

the way to Obama’s godfather and moneybags Antoin Rezko, and all the way to Illinois Governor

Rod Blagojevich. Here we begin to see what kind of perks might emerge as by-products of Obama’s

role in helping get money for the US-controlled factions of the PLO:

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 157

The Tony Rezko trial opened the door to more Board Game cases not yet tried and more

Combine members threw in the towel. Ali Ata, the former director of the Illinois Finance

Authority, entered into a plea agreement on April 22, 2008… Ata pled guilty to charges that

included tax fraud, and lying to the FBI in saying he received nothing in return for $50,000 in

contributions to Blagojevich when according to the plea agreement, he did “receive something

for those contributions, specifically employment with a state agency ... with an annual salary of

approximately $127,000.” The agreement notes that Ata met with Blagojevich, not Rezko, in

2000 or 2001, and Blagojevich asked for his support because he was contemplating a run for

higher office. Ata testified that he held his first Blagojevich fundraiser in the 1990s when he

was asked to raise money for Blagojevich’s run for Congress within the Arab community. Ata

made a $5,000 donation to Obama on June 30, 2003. Talat Othman was also appointed to this

Board, and he donated $1,000 to Obama on June 30, 2003. David Gustman was made chairman,

and his wife, Lisa, also gave Obama $1,000 on June 30. Ata is a former president of the

Chicago Chapter of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. He represents “a

deeper corruption” in the Arab American community, “an aspect of the story that has not

received much attention,” according to a May 2, 2008 report by Ray Hanania in the Southwest

News-Herald. Hanania points out that many in the Arab community are calling Ata a “rat.” But

he’s not alone, Hanania says: “The real rats are those who used their positions as “leaders” to

rape and pillage their own community. The real rats are the so-called “leaders” who worked to

benefit themselves pretending they were doing it for the benefit of the community.” In his

report, Hanania explains how Ata and others would often gather at a “hookah” café on Harlem

Avenue, where they helped organize political dinners attended by Arab Americans from the

Southwest suburbs at which politicians where “honored.” “These Arab community leaders,” he

says, “would tell the community that if they bought tickets to their candidate’s nights,” their

organization fundraisers or donated through them to local politicians, these politicians would

respond by giving the Arab American community empowerment.” “They said the politicians

would give the Arab Americans a voice in their governments,” he reports. “In truth,” Hanania

says, “these political leaders lied…. They did get jobs, contracts and clout,” he notes, “but the

people who benefited were not members of the community but rather the relatives, children,

friends and business associates of these leaders.” (Pringle, “Curtain Time for Barack Obama -

Part IV,” op-ed news)

Here again, the narrow and divisive identity politics purveyed by the Ford Foundation reveals its

bankruptcy: it creates a thin layer of rich exploiters, while leaving the majority of each ethnic group

worse off than when they started.

THE ROBERT MALLEY AFFAIR AND THE SOROS-BRZEZINSKI

INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP

Obama’s relations with the Middle East agent community were also illuminated by the Robert

Malley affair. Robert Malley worked for the International Crisis Group, which is heavily funded by

George Soros and has Zbigniew Brzezinski on its board. With this, we know everything we need to

know about the International Crisis Group: its operatives do not want peace in the Middle East, but

rather mobilization of the Arabs and Moslems against Russia and China in the framework of

Brzezinski’s apocalyptic vision of confrontation. Robert Malley’s father Simon Malley was born in

Cairo to a Jewish-Syrian family. He moved to France in 1969, where he founded the pseudo-left

journal Afrique Asie; the name was changed to L’Economiste du Tiers Monde in the 1970s. This

was supposedly radical third world nationalist, but gave ample scope to Fanon and the future Pol

158 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Pots and Bani Sadrs. Many suspected that Simon Malley was in fact running a British operation.

Simon Malley was also used to sabotage French foreign policy in the third world, which is often in

conflict with London and Washington. In October 1980, the French had had enough of Malley’s

constant wrecking operations, and they deported him, hustling him onto a plane bound for New

York. Simon’s son Robert obviously continued the family business of being a left-cover operative

in the orbit of the US-UK imperial line.

After months of inconclusive sniping by various web sites against Robert Malley, he was

quickly dumped by the Obama campaign from his role in Obama’s Middle East Advisory Council

at the end of the first week in May when it became known that he had been meeting with the

Palestinian group Hamas. Malley told the London Times that he had been in regular contact with

Hamas, which rules Gaza. Malley claimed that, when he met with Hamas, he was wearing his

International Crisis Group hat, and not his Obama advisor’s hat. “I’ve never hidden the fact that in

my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people,” Malley said. Ben LaBolt, a

spokesman for Obama, attempted damage control: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts,

provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he

will not play any role in the future.” The rapid departure of Mr Malley came after two days of

heated clashes between John McCain, the Republican nominee-elect, and Mr Obama over Middle

East policy. (London Times, May 10, 2008) Malley was a much less important advisor to Obama

than the overall campaign controller and guru, Zbigniew Brzezinski. If Malley could be fired over a

few meetings with Hamas, why was Brzezinski not fired because of his sponsorship of Ilyas

Achmadov, the Chechen terrorist ambassador who was living high on the hog in Washington DC at

US taxpayer expense as a result of Brzezinski’s lobbying – lobbying in which Senator McCain was

also a key participant?

THE IKHWAN ENDORSES OBAMA

The Muslim American Society (MAS) is an organization closely linked to the Muslim

Brotherhood. On its website’s “Personality Page,” the MAS displays a photo and short bio of

Barack Hussein Obama along with those it calls other prominent Muslims, such as Malcolm X,

Saladin and Moqtada al-Sadr. A 2004 Chicago Tribune investigation revealed that, after a

contentious debate, U.S. leaders of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, the classic British

intelligence vehicle for fighting progressive nationalist regimes in the Arab world like Kassem of

Iraq and Nasser of Egypt with benighted mystical reactionaries, decided in 1993 to begin calling

themselves the Muslim American Society. The Brotherhood’s goal is ostensibly to spread the rule

of Islamic law throughout the world, but exceptions are made whenever required by British

interests. Key Muslim Brotherhood ideologues, including founder Hassan al-Banna (whom we

have already met as the father of British and Israeli-controlled provocateur Sabri al Banna/Abu

Nidal), have endorsed violence as a means of doing so. Today, MAS’ leaders admit that the group

was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, but claim that MAS has evolved since then.

MARK RUDD: THE WEATHERMEN AS FBI PROVOACTEURS?

It must always be understood that the Weathermen were in no way honest radicals gone astray,

nor yet authentic communist revolutionaries: they were wreckers, saboteurs, and provocateurs who

had been sent by the intelligence community into the student and peace movements for the purpose

of destroying them. Here again, Thomas Ayers’ seat on the board of General Dynamics, the largest

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 159

US defense contractor for the Pentagon in most years, tells us everything we need to know about the

relations of the Ayers family to the intelligence community. Rumors that Bill Ayers was a spook

circulated in SDS in the late 60s. One Weatherman leader who appears obsessed by the appearance

that his old terrorist gang was in fact a tool of the FBI is none other than Mark Rudd. (Or, at least,

Rudd chooses to harp on the FBI, perhaps to draw attention away from his more likely sponsors in

the intelligence community, such as the domestic counterinsurgency operations of the Ford

Foundation, with which Rudd has been linked by published sources.) At the time of the SDS split

convention in Chicago in the summer of 1969, Mark Rudd was without question the most famous

Weatherman leader because of the media attention to his role at the Columbia strike, and it was he

who was chosen as the national secretary of the rump faction of SDS controlled by the Weatherman

crazies after the expulsion of the Progressive Labor Party, the International Socialists, the Labor

Committees, and a number of smaller Trotskyist groups. Rudd had been chosen by the New York

City television stations as the authentic student anarchist voice of the Columbia University strike in

April 1969, and this had given him a significant national profile. Rudd was sent on a national tour

of university campuses and SDS chapters to make the case for the lunatic Weatherman point of

view. The bomb throwing and cop killing Weatherman faction, however, considered Rudd as a

lightweight and intended only to use him as a disposable figurehead. These crazies soon drove

Rudd out of the Weatherman organization. In the following decades, Rudd appears to have

developed some rudimentary understanding of the precious services rendered to the FBI and the

intelligence community in general through the destruction of SDS by the Weatherman action

faction. Rudd returns again and again to the idea that the Weathermen were doing exactly what the

FBI wanted them to do, even though he also hysterically asserts that the Weathermen were not paid

agents, conscious agents, or witting operatives. Here is a sample of Rudd’s ruminations, dating back

to an interview recorded in 2004: ‘… we in the leadership of Weatherman (predecessor to the

Weather Underground Organization) made a historically criminal decision at the end of 1969 to

scuttle Students for a Democratic Society, the largest student anti-war and radical organization, with

over 300 chapters on college campuses and high schools. We mistakenly believed that we could

bring into existence a revolutionary movement, led by an underground revolutionary army; SDS,

with its purely legal above-ground existence and its reform agenda, was seen as an impediment to

the growth of the revolutionary army. Our faction was in control of the national and regional offices

of the organization, plus its newspaper. I remember sometime in January, 1970, dumping the

membership lists of the New York Regional Office into a garbage barge at the W. 14th St. pier. How

could we have done the FBI’s work better for them? I believe that we weakened the larger

movement, whose goal was uniting as many people as possible to end the Vietnam War. Besides

causing people to drop out, we gave the government ammunition to smear the whole anti-war

movement as violent crazies bent on destruction of the society. Did our actions help attract the huge

middle of American society who might otherwise have joined the anti-war movement, public

opinion being vastly against the war? “Bring the War Home,” was as counter-productive a line in

1969 and 1970 as it was in 2001 at the World Trade Center. Last, and probably most important, the

Weather Underground forced a debilitating ideological debate in the much larger anti-war

movement over the “necessity” of engaging in armed “revolutionary” actions. In the summer of

1969 Weather-organized actions even disrupted the Mobilization to End the War in Vietnam

(“Mobe”) mass anti-war events and demonstrations. People became demoralized and left the antiwar

movement because they didn’t want any part of an armed revolution. We destroyed SDS

because it wasn’t radical enough (it couldn’t take the final step of anti-imperialism to armed

action), thereby doing the work of the FBI.’ (Radical History Review, Spring, 2006, emphasis

160 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

added.) In fact, the control mechanism for the Weathermen ran through the foundations rather than

through the FBI, for obvious reasons.

These same themes are developed in Rudd’s retrospective analysis of how the proto-fascist

Weatherman provocateurs succeeded in destroying SDS, which had been growing rapidly until the

crazies seized control of the Chicago National Office in June and July of 1969: ‘Students for a

Democratic Society had been growing almost effortlessly since 1965 when the U.S. attacked

Vietnam with ground troops. By 1968 there were over 300 autonomous chapters on college

campuses, high schools, and even post-college; the number of active members may have been more

than 100,000 (though dues-paying national membership was much smaller). The story of what

happened became known as The Days of Rage has been told elsewhere, including the 2003

documentary, “The Weather Underground.” What’s significant for this story, though, is that the

SDS chapters rejected en masse support for the action. Most chapters had been independent, neither

PL nor RYM, and didn’t participate in or even understand the argument. The effect of the split at

the June Convention was to cut them off from the National Office. We in what became known as

Weatherman had lost our base. But we kept going without one. The effect on SDS as a whole was

disaster. By the beginning of 1970 the national organization had ceased to exist. We in the

Weatherman leadership had made a decision that SDS wasn’t radical enough, that it was an

impediment to the building of a revolutionary movement in this country. We needed an

underground guerilla army to begin the revolutionary armed struggle. So we disbanded the National

and Regional Offices, dissolved the national organization, and set the chapters adrift. Many chapters

kept organizing, in their own ways, against the war and racism; demoralized, others disbanded. We

couldn’t have done the FBI’s work better for them had we been paid agents, which I know we

weren’t. [Maybe not of the FBI, but how about the foundations?] We were just stupid kids too in

love with our ideas to realize they weren’t real. We believed they were real because we thought

them… My recall is that my comrades and I in the leadership of Weatherman made specific bad

decisions based on our evolving and deepening ideology toward the chimera of revolution and the

strategy revolutionary guerilla warfare. One thinks of the roads not taken. We could have chosen to

fight to maintain the organization, to strengthen its anti-imperialism and anti-racism among

students, to build the largest possible coalition against the war. Perhaps we could have ended the

war sooner, who knows?’52 Rudd is certainly right that without the efforts of the Weatherman

wreckers and saboteurs, the Vietnam War might have been brought to an end much sooner, and

other positive causes could have been advanced on the domestic front. But of course, the

Weatherman domestic program was nothing but race war. Rudd’s commentary on youthful

fanatics, not far removed from their delusions of infantile omnipotence, who hysterically insist that

their egocentric ideas must be real simply because they are thinking them gives us some insight into

the mentality of Obama’s swarming adolescents today. Perhaps someday, when the US and

foundation archives are opened, we will be able to reconstruct the story of how the intelligence

agencies destroyed SDS; we can be sure that an especially lurid chapter in this tale will feature the

activities of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

THE URGENCY OF COUNTERINSURGENCY, 1986-1988:

ADLAI STEVENSON’S DEBACLE, AXELROD, AND THE 1313 GANG

The beginning of Obama’s career with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge under the sponsorship

of Thomas Ayers and Bill Ayers takes us back to a moment when the bi-partisan, financiercontrolled

social control apparatus ruling Chicago appeared to be undergoing definite strain and

possible crisis. In the Illinois Democratic primary of March 18, 1986, the corrupt Chicago

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 161

Democratic machine was supporting the gubernatorial candidacy of Adlai Stevenson III, a former

US Senator and the son of two-time Democratic presidential candidate and Illinois governor Adlai

Stevenson, a favorite of the New York investment banks and a man who put a professorial face on

the dirty Cook County Democratic organization, but lost the presidency to Ike Eisenhower in 1952

and in 1956. For Illinois Secretary of State, the Democratic machine wanted the political hack

Aurelia Pucinski, who came from a politically prominent family and was supported by the party

organization. The Democratic machine was stunned when the Democratic nominations for

Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of State were won by Mark Fairchild and Janice Hart, two

supporters of the political movement of Lyndon LaRouche. The national media went berserk over

the idea that Illinois voters had chosen Fairchild and Hart, despite their association with LaRouche,

as the most effective vehicles for an explosive protest vote against the existing order of things.

Janice Hart said on the day after the primary: “I’m going to revive the spirit of Abraham Lincoln

and General Patton. We’re going to roll our tanks down State Street.” Democratic National

Committee chairman Paul Kirk joined in the hysteria, exclaiming, “Good Lord, we have a problem

here.” At this point, Stevenson could have kept his own hopes for the governorship alive by bowing

gracefully to the will of the voters, and gracefully and silently taking his place at the top of a

Democratic ticket including Fairchild and Hart for statewide office. After all, actual terrorist

bombers and accused murderers like Ayers and Dohrn had already been welcomed back into the

Chicago Democratic machine in those years. Fairchild and Hart had never killed or bombed

anybody. Neither one had ever appeared on the FBI’s most wanted list; neither had a criminal

record. But, of course, Ayers and Dohrn were different: they had always been working as

provocateurs for the intelligence community and the financiers. So Stevenson decided to go berserk,

slandering the candidates chosen by the Illinois Democratic voters, and ruining his own hopes for

the governorship in the process.

AXELROD PUSHES STEVENSON TO SELF-DESTRUCT

Ironically, the campaign manager who goaded the younger Stevenson to destroy himself was

none other than Obama’s current Svengali, the Chicago machine hack David Axelrod: ‘Political

consultant David Axelrod, who today runs Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign, was in 1986

managing the campaign of Adlai Stevenson III for governor. Axelrod told Stevenson he should quit

the race, rather than run in the general election on the same, Democratic, ticket with the LaRouche

supporters. ‘“I thought he should resign. He couldn’t run with those maniacs,” Axelrod said later.

Stevenson decided to quit the Democrats but to run as a third party candidate. Axelrod later recalled

how Stevenson fared, under his guidance: “In the following months, Stevenson was battered by the

press and deserted by the politicians. It reached the point of the absurd. It was the political

equivalent of AIDS.”’ (Chicago Magazine, December 1987). David Axelrod grew up in New York

City, where his mother, Myril Axelrod, was vice president of the Young & Rubicam advertising

agency and was a pioneer of the use of “focus groups” for profiling the population, long before

Frank Luntz and company had arrived on the scene. Attending the University of Chicago beginning

in 1972, majoring in political science, Axelrod became associated with the financier-directed

“political reform” movement centered at that University. While he was writing articles for the Hyde

Park Herald, he was taken under the wing of Don Rose, a political operative of the Public

Administration Service school at the University. That school was a component of the notorious

1313 building complex at the University of Chicago, a national center for the manipulation of

America’s public policy and municipal administrations. According to a 2004 article in the Hyde

Park Herald, “1313 grew from a 1930 lunchtime conversation in Geneva, Switzerland between

[University official Louis] Brownlow and Beardsley Ruml. Ruml was executive director of the

162 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Spelman Fund of New York, a relatively new entity created to disburse Rockefeller dollars.

Brownlow pressed his case for a public administration clearing house, Ruml enthusiastically

embraced the idea and, in 1937 the [Rockefeller-controlled] Spelman Fund disbursed $1 million to

the University of Chicago to underwrite the construction of what became 1313.” (Mr. Ruml also

helped organize the fascist psychiatry enterprise known as the Josiah Macy Foundation.) Don Rose

recommended young Axelrod for an intern’s job at the Chicago Tribune daily newspaper, where the

intensely plugged-in Axelrod eventually rose to become political editor. Don Rose later told

Chicago magazine, “Axelrod was the first political reporter at the Trib who was really associated

with the liberal reform movement. He was sympathetic to the movement ... and he developed a lot

of contacts. One of the reasons he looked good was because the people he developed associations

with were on the ascendancy....” In 1984, Axelrod quit the Tribune to manage Paul Simon’s senate

race, followed later by jobs with Stevenson, Harold Washington, and others. Throughout, Axelrod

has been identified with the movement for political “reforms” — such as privatization, budget cuts,

etc. — representing the oligarchs at the University of Chicago and their financier sponsors. David

Axelrod is the Obama campaign’s overall director; Axelrod’s partner (in the firm AKP Media),

David Plouffe, is Obama’s official campaign manager; and Axelrod’s other partner, John Del

Cecato, is a strategist for the campaign.’ (larouchepac.com, April 24, 2008)

Stevenson formed the Solidarity Party and ran with Jane Spirgel as the Secretary of State

nominee and Mike Howlett for Lieutenant Governor. Hart achieved 15% of the vote, with Spirgel

taking 17%. Hart and Spirgel’s opponent, Republican incumbent Jim Edgar, won the election by the

largest margin in any state-wide election in Illinois history (until Barky’s 2004 defeat of the

carpetbagging buffoon Allan Keyes), with 1.574 million votes (67%). Fairchild was defeated, and

Republican Big Jim Thompson took the governorship over the hapless Stevenson.

THE 1987 CHICAGO TEACHERS’ STRIKE

As we have seen, one of the targets of any foundation-funded school reform is automatically to

weaken or bust the teachers’ union. In September 1987, the Chicago teachers’ union went on strike

for 19 days. This was the ninth strike in two decades. Secretary of Education William Bennett, in an

attempt to encourage the busting of the union after the 1987 school strike, declared the city’s

schools the “worst in America.” Under the late Mayor Richard J. Daley, Chicago had deliberately

maintained a highly segregated system. ‘As whites fled to the suburbs and many remaining white

families sent children to the large Catholic school system, citizen support for the public schools

diminished. Daley tried to buy labor peace with the unions through financial sleight-of-hand that,

after his death, resulted in full-scale crisis in 1979. In response to the crescendo of discontent which

was also orchestrated by foundation operatives, Mayor Harold Washington, the city’s first black

mayor, convened an “education summit” in 1986 to persuade businesses to guarantee jobs to public

school graduates if they met performance standards.” The LSC ploy also succeeded in splitting the

black community, with Jesse Jackson lobbying forcefully against reform, fighting implementation,

and battling, for example, to save the job of his old protégé, Manford Byrd, the superintendent of

schools who was forced out. The black middle class, many of whom were school employees, was

the political and financial base for Jackson’s Operation PUSH, despite his vocal advocacy of the

disenfranchised poor. When PUSH came to the shove of disgruntled black parents, Jackson’s

organization sided with the black administrators, above all, and the teachers.’ About 550 positions

have been cut out of a central bureaucracy of about 4,100, while top administrators have done

everything they could to save themselves. Veronica Anderson, writing in the March 2008 issue of

Catalyst Chicago, described the local control institutions as generally moribund, observing that

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 163

“The death knell is ringing for Chicago’s local school councils, as it has been for years.” ‘One of

the biggest abuses of the local control system is that principals have no tenure, and have to cater to

the whims of local groups of parents who often have no concept of education except their own likes

and dislikes. Anderson also reports that “the constant onslaught of negative buzz regarding LSCs

has created the widespread impression that LSCs are hapless, ineffective, and at times as the case of

Curie High School seemingly illustrates, dangerous to school improvement.” The interest of the

foundations, and their grant money, was steadily fading.’ (David Moberg, “Can Democracy Save

Chicago’s Schools?,” American Prospect, November 30, 2002) One of the few tangible results of

the creation of the LSCs at the individual school level was that several hundred experienced and

previously tenured principals were fired, which drastically lowered the administrative quality of the

system, but which promised a big savings to the greedy banks who owned the Chicago municipal

bonds marketed by firms like Nuveen and Co, and who wanted to be sure that their interest

payments had top priority.

BILL AYERS: FROM TERRORIST TO EDUCATION REFORMER

Thanks to the fact that his father Tom had intelligence community connections on a very high

level, Bill Ayers was able to emerge from clandestine criminal life and re-invent himself as an

education reformer. A key part of this was his magical ability to get money from the foundations.

His knack was so deft that it suggested that he had been a foundation operative all along, even

before Executive Order 12333. Steve Diamond has chronicled the process by which the former

fugitive Bill Ayers was transformed into a few short years into a top authority on education policy,

and above all into a dispenser of tens of millions of dollars of corporate largesse: ‘Bill raised money

to start the Small Schools Workshop in the early 90s and eventually hired another former Maoist

from the 60s (and actually someone who was a bitter opponent of Ayers as SDS disintegrated)

named Mike Klonsky to head it up. Bill’s brother John later got in on the small schools approach

also, raising money in part from the Annenberg Challenge program started by Bill and chaired by

Obama… A leading figure in the Chicago business groups that were lobbying for cost cutting and

“efficiency” in the Chicago schools in the 1980s was Bill Ayers’ father, Thomas Ayers…. Tom

Ayers co-authored a report of a joint public-private task force on school reform and was later

nominated to head up Chicago United, a business backed school reform group that Ayers helped

found, by Chicago Mayor Jane Byrne, but was opposed successfully by black community activists.

When the 1988 Reform Act was passed a group called Leadership for Quality Education (LQE) was

formed…by the elite business lobby that was in part behind the new reforms, to train the newly

elected local school council members. Some 6000 LSC members were elected. And they became a

huge thorn in the side of school administration in Chicago. Interestingly, one LSC member was

John Ayers, son of Tom and brother of Bill. In 1993, John was made head of the LQE - which, by

then, according to Shipps, was caught in the middle of the battle emerging to re-centralize control of

the schools in the hands of the mayor. In the fall of 1988, however, Obama left the city to go off to

law school. My best guess, though, is that it was in that 86-88 time frame that Obama likely met up

with the Ayers family.’ (Steve Diamond, ‘Who “sent” Obama?’ globallabor.blogspot.com, April 22,

2008) Again, this cannot be seen as a matter of pure coincidence, but rather of people like

Huntington and Brzezinski putting their protégé in contact with an important regional leader of the

US financier establishment.

164 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

OBAMA’S BIG BREAK: AYERS AND

THE CHICAGO ANNENBERG CHALLENGE

Diamond stresses that getting tapped to head up the prestigious and massively funded

Annenberg Chicago Challenge – based on no visible qualifications – constituted Obama’s key

inflection point or career take-off. Diamond is of course attempting to explain this process based on

more or less chance encounters among individuals, rather than being aware that we are watching an

intelligence network which goes back well over half a century. Obama and the Ayers clan came

together not by chance, but thanks to the fine Trilateral hand that fosters some careers and strangles

others. Diamond recounts: ‘Then, in late 1994 or early 1995, Obama made what I think was

probably the key move in his early career. He was named Chairman of the Board of the Chicago

Annenberg Challenge, a $50 million grant program to funnel money into reform efforts at Chicago

schools. It turns out that the architect of the Annenberg Challenge was Bill Ayers, who designed the

grant proposal and shepherded it to success. The purpose of the program was to defend the

controversial and troubled local schools council effort that had been put in place back in 1988. The

first Executive Director of the Challenge was Ken Rolling, who came there from the much

discussed Woods Fund (where he had been a program officer). The Woods Fund had provided

grants to Obama’s DCP in the late 80s and Rolling was a part of the school reform effort in which

both Bill Ayers and Obama participated. Obama joined the board of the Woods Fund in 1993 in

1999 he would be joined on the board by Bill Ayers.’ (Steve Diamond, ‘Who “sent” Obama?’

globallabor.blogspot.com, April 22, 2008)53

Obama’s role in heading up the Chicago Annenberg Challenge meant money, prestige, and

above all an excellent chance to network with the lakefront oligarchs: ‘… the Annenberg Challenge

money came through anyway due to the efforts of Bill Ayers, among others. It had to be matched 2

to 1 by corporate and foundation money (in fact, they raised an additional $60 million by 1999), so

the Board Chairmanship would have allowed Obama to be in touch with the powerful money

interests in Chicago, including possibly the Pritzker Family and others that Kaufman mentions in

his story. Penny Pritzker would join the board of the Chicago Public Education Fund which

received its startup funding from the Annenberg Challenge as the Challenge wound down in 2001 -

the Challenge, in effect, handed the baton of support for school reform to the CPEF. Penny Pritzker

[who owns a share of the Hyatt Hotel fortune, built on the backs of super-exploited Hispanic

cleaning ladies] is now a key Obama campaign insider in charge of fund raising.’ (Steve Diamond,

‘Who “sent” Obama?’ globallabor.blogspot.com, April 22, 2008)

Today, Ayers presents himself not as terrorist vermin, cowardly butcher and mass murderer, but

rather as a theoretician of educating children, and Midwest moralist to boot. Ayers wrote on his

website in a January 19, 2008 essay on school reform: “The dominant narrative in contemporary

school reform is once again focused on exclusion and disadvantage, race and class, black and white.

‘Across the US,’ the National Governor’s Association declared in 2005, ‘a gap in academic

achievement persists between minority and disadvantaged students and their white counterparts.’

This is the commonly referenced and popularly understood ‘racial achievement gap,’ and it drives

education policy at every level. Interestingly, whether heartfelt or self-satisfied, the narrative never

mentions the monster in the room: white supremacy….Gloria Ladson-Billings upends all of this

with an elegant reversal: there is no achievement gap, she argues, but actually a glancing reflection

of something deeper and more profound—America has a profound education debt. The educational

inequities that began with the annihilation of native peoples and the enslavement of Africans, the

conquest of the continent and the importation of both free labor and serfs, transformed into

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 165

apartheid education, something anemic, inferior, inadequate, and oppressive. Over decades and

centuries the debt has accumulated and is passed from generation to generation, and it continues to

grow and pile up.” (Emphasis added.)54

In April 2008 Sol Stern of the neocon Manhattan Institute gave a series of interviews seeking to

show that Ayers’ politics have hardly changed since his Weatherman days. According to Stern,

‘Ayers still boasts about working full-time to bring down American capitalism and imperialism, but

he does this now from his tenured perch as Distinguished Professor of Education at the University

of Illinois, Chicago.55 Instead of planting bombs in public buildings, Ayers now works to

indoctrinate America’s future teachers in the revolutionary cause, urging them to pass on the lessons

to their public school students. […] ‘In late 1994 or early 1995, Obama made what I think was

probably the key move in his early career. He was named Chairman of the Board of the Chicago

Annenberg Challenge….’56 This was initially a $50 million grant program to funnel money into

social engineering, manipulation, and divide-and-conquer efforts at Chicago schools. ‘It turns out

that the architect of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge was Bill Ayers, who designed the grant

proposal and shepherded it to success.’ (Pundita, noquarterusa.net)57 Naturally, this must be

considered a true elective affinity between Ayers and Obama, but it also reflects the network which

was supporting them both: the left CIA foundation network was promoting the careers of its

stalwarts, even as it carried out its appointed tasks for the banking elite.

Steve Diamond pointed out on Noquarterusa.net that ‘the link between Obama and Ayers had to

pre-date the November 1995 event because [by 1995] Obama was already Chairman of the Board

of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant program. The Annenberg Challenge was a $50 million

grant (to be matched by additional donors 2:1) to a new Chicago non-profit entity to make grants to

schools in Chicago. The grant proposal was conceived of and written by Bill Ayers. Ayers was

named Chicago’s “Citizen of the Year” for his efforts. He was featured on the PBS News Hour to

discuss the grant. In every assessment of the program Ayers was given credit for leading the charge

on the program. He began the design of the proposal in late 1993 and the grant was awarded in

January 1995.’ Steve Diamond goes on to elaborate that ‘the Annenberg Challenge was not a

random school improvement effort. The purpose of the Challenge was to help shore up the ongoing

reform effort then underway in the Chicago public schools. It was a counter-attack by Ayers in what

some commentators called the “Chicago school wars.” The reform effort was floundering and

facing increasing opposition from business groups and others. The reform was built on a 1988 law

that imposed “local school councils” (LSCs) on the school system to create a new power center that

would challenge both the Chicago teachers’ unions and the school system administration. Both

Ayers and Obama were supporters of these 1988 reforms. (One little discussed fact about the reform

effort - when it targeted the union and the school administration, it was taking on two institutions

that had been a new and important source of attractive professional jobs for black Chicagoans.)”’

Diamond’s suspicions are more than confirmed: since the New York City teachers’ strike was

broken in 1968-69, the stock in trade of the Ford Foundation and its co-thinkers has been to

organize black parents into community control councils which can then be used to attack the

teachers’ unions, while also tearing down the school system itself. The goal is the financiers’ aim of

destroying free universal public education of any sort in this country, to facilitate the reduction of

America into serfdom. So Ayers is doing his job as an affirmative action foundation provocateur

eager to play black parents against teachers, many of them also black or Hispanic. The name of the

game is always divide and conquer, playing one group of little people and victims of the system

against another, to keep Wall Street and the financier elite above the fray. Caught between the topdown

privatized business model, with private interests bilking the system, the voucher-school

166 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

choice-charter school route, and the lunatic left community control model peddled by Ayers with its

eternal petty conflicts, quality education would never stand a chance. Real progress required

resources, the rebuilding of neighborhoods, and the hope of good jobs on the horizon – all things

which the US ruling financier elite had proven itself incapable of providing.

Diamond adds that ‘…it was not clear that the LSCs were helping students learn more. In 1995 a

new law would pass in Springfield re-centralizing power, but this time in the hands of the mayor

(Richard Daley) through a new CEO for the school system. This gutted the power of the LSCs. Bill

Ayers opposed this re-centralization (I believe because Ayers saw the LSCs as a potential means by

which to impose his authoritarian “social justice” education agenda). To lead the Challenge Ayers

would certainly have wanted a board chairman who was sympathetic with his goals. That suggests

that Obama and he had already established a relationship that convinced Ayers that Obama was the

right man for this key leadership role. As I have said here, it is possible Ayers and Obama first met

during the campaign for the creation of the LSCs in the wake of the 1987 teachers’ union strike, an

event that galvanized community and business support in Chicago for the LSC idea. Both Ayers and

Obama were active in that campaign for the LSCs.’ The self-defeating counterinsurgency strategy

of community control had, of course, been what Obama was selling when he worked for the

Alinskyite wreckers at the Gamaliel Foundation. But there was also a Trilateral hand guiding his

destiny, as we must never forget.58

WILL OBAMA DEMAND REPARATIONS?

Other than Ayers, who qualifies as a top racist FOB (Friend of Barky), Senator Obama’s main

education advisor is Professor Linda Darling-Hammond, a prominent national theoretician of

education policy who teaches at Stanford University’s School of Education. Darling-Hammond

operates through something called the Forum for Education and Democracy (FED). Darling-

Hammond’s program for education reform starts off with the need to ‘Repay the “education debt.”’

This is a concept which is left vague, but which could very easily serve as a cloak for a demand for

reparations for the black community only, a demand sure to create a violent paroxysm of racial

tension and indeed race war if it were to gather strength under the present conditions of economic

breakdown. The education debt, says Professor Darling-Hammond, is a concept invented by

Professor Gloria Ladson-Billings, of the University of Wisconsin and a “convener” together with

Professor Darling-Hammond of the FED. It is aimed at replacing the concept that has dominated

much education reform discussion in recent years called the “achievement gap.” As Darling-

Hammond has written: “[T]he problem we face is less an ‘achievement gap’ than an educational

debt that has accumulated over centuries of denied access to education and employment, reinforced

by deepening poverty and resource inequalities in schools. Until American society confronts the

accumulated educational debt owed to these students and takes responsibility for the inferior

resources they receive, [Gloria] Ladson-Billings argues, children of color and of poverty will

continue to be left behind.”59 This might well serve as a cloak for reparations demands.

The suspicions grow when we find Ladson-Billings quoting veteran foundation race operative

Randall Robinson in an article on educational debt in Educational Researcher (Oct. 2005), where

we read: “What is it that we might owe to citizens who historically have been excluded from social

benefits and opportunities? Randall Robinson (2000) states: ‘No nation can enslave a race of people

for hundreds of years, set them free bedraggled and penniless, pit them, without assistance in a

hostile environment, against privileged victimizers, and then reasonably expect the gap between the

heirs of the two groups to narrow. Lines, begun parallel and left alone, can never touch. (p. 74)’”

The book by Randall Robinson which is cited here is The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks,

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 167

which is a strident demand for reparations to be paid by non-blacks to blacks to redress the impact

of slavery and discrimination. Darling-Hammond has also argued that there is in America “a

growing number of ‘apartheid’ schools that serve racial/ethnic minority students exclusively —

schools that have little political clout and are extraordinarily impoverished.” (Steve Diamond,

noquarterusa.net) Once more, the implied correct answer seems to be reparations. Let it be clear:

class-based, race-blind economic recovery programs for those facing poverty and exclusion will

enjoy wide support and will help to overcome the depression. Demands for some groups to pay

reparations to other groups because of a theory of collective guilt will lead towards race war and

civil war, to say nothing of deepening depression. Obama by all indications is leading towards the

latter.

OBAMA PROMISES DEEDS, NOT WORDS, FOR REPARATIONS

In a Chicago speech at the end of July 2008, Obama made clear that he will indeed attempt to

impose reparations if elected, doubtless on the basis of American collective guilt. These reparations

would apparently go to Native Americans and to African-Americans, and possibly to Hawaiian-

Americans as well. ‘“There’s no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans as

well as other persons of color in this country, we’ve got some very sad and difficult things to

account for,” Obama told hundreds of attendees of UNITY ‘08, a convention of four minority

journalism associations. The Hawaii-born senator, who has told local reporters that he supports the

federal recognition bill for native Hawaiians drafted by U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, noted other ethnic

groups but did not mention native Hawaiians when answering a question about his thoughts on a

formal U.S. apology to American Indians. “I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the

tragic elements of our history, acknowledged,” the Democratic presidential hopeful said. “I

consistently believe that when it comes to whether it’s Native Americans or African-American

issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer

words, but offer deeds.”’60 Let there be no doubt: under depression conditions, this policy is a recipe

to move the United States towards civil war in the form of race war. This is apparently the firm

intent of Obama’s Trilateral masters.

FATHER PFLEGER, REPARATIONS, AND RACE WAR

Another long-term close friend of Obama who is evidently supporting the concept of reparations

is the renegade priest, Father Pfleger, who became a focus of controversy in late May 2008. Pfleger

visited Trinity United, and was introduced by Otis Moss as “a friend of Trinity.” Pfleger then

launched in to a diatribe which seems to suggest a campaign for reparations: “I must now address

the one who says, ‘don’t hold me responsible for what my ancestors did.’ But you have enjoyed the

benefits of what your ancestors did! And unless you are ready to give up the benefits — Throw

away your 401 fund! [sic] Throw away your trust fund! Throw away all the money that been put

away in the company you walked into ‘cause your daddy and your granddaddy and your great

granddaddy — Unless you are willing to give up the benefits, then you must be responsible for what

was done in your generation! ‘Cause you are the beneficiary of this insurance policy!”61 There

seems to be little doubt that the first year of an Obama presidency will be marked by convulsive

campaign to impose punitive reparations on the non-black sectors of American society. Needless to

say, this entire concept has been spawned by the cynical ruling class operatives of the foundation

community as part of their eternal strategy of divide and conquer to keep the American people as a

whole in submission to the Wall Street financiers, who are the ones that ought to be taxed for the

benefit of the people as a whole.

168 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Steve Diamond sums up the situation, noting that Obama’s backers are heavily committed to the

idea of reparations, specifically in the educational sphere: ‘If you believe the rhetoric of the “social

justice” crowd influencing the Obama camp’s approach to education policy - the authoritarian

leftists Bill Ayers and his sidekick Mike Klonsky as well as ed school professors like Linda

Darling-Hammond and Gloria Ladson-Billings - only reparations for 400 years of oppression of

non-whites will allow us to close the “achievement gap” between the oppressors, whites, and the

oppressed, minority kids….Lying behind this argument is a pernicious concept - that white workers

benefit at the expense of black workers and that more widely American workers live off the backs

of workers in the third world. This is at the heart of the authoritarian and anti-union politics of the

Ayers/Klonsky crowd.’ (http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/26/white-guilt-politics-of-Obamacrowd-

undermined/) Better than call Ayers an authoritarian, we should dub him a totalitarian liberal

who has already reached stormtroop junction.

Very large sums of money were involved in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and it is well

worth our while to follow them: ‘The CAC was established in 1995 as a result of a $49.2 million

grant from Walter Annenberg to support education reform in Chicago. Bill Ayers and Anne C.

Hallett co-signed a letter submitting the grant proposal to Brown University President Vartan

Gregorian on November 8, 1994 where the national Challenge office would be headquartered. The

letter was on the letterhead of the University of Illinois at Chicago (“UIC”). Ayers identified

himself as representing the UIC and the “Chicago Forum for School Change.” Ms. Hallett is

identified as the Executive Director of the Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform. At the

bottom of the letter, a parenthetical states: “On behalf of the Chicago School Reform

Collaborative.”’ (Steve Diamond, ‘That “Guy Who Lives in My Neighborhood”: Behind the Ayers-

Obama Relationship,’ noquarterusa.net, June 19, 2008) ‘The letter and the attached detailed

proposal grew out of a process that began in December 1993 when a small group led by Ayers,

Hallett and Warren Chapman of the Joyce Foundation ‘met to discuss a proposal to the Annenberg

Challenge for support of this city’s public school reform efforts.” ‘This group became the nucleus

of the larger Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one of the two operational arms of the CAC,

which Ayers would co-chair and on which Hallett and Chapman would serve.’ (Program Report,

CAC, Jan. 1, 1995 through Mar. 31, 1996 at 1). (Steve Diamond, ‘That “Guy Who Lives in My

Neighborhood”: Behind the Ayers-Obama Relationship,’ noquarterusa.net, June 19, 2008)

The Chicago banking and finance elite includes the Chicago Board of Trade, the Chicago

Mercantile Exchange, and the Chicago Board Options Exchange, critical parts of the modern

derivatives bubble. Did these ruling interests fear that Chicago was on the verge of a mass strike, in

which white and black, employed and jobless, would demand economic concessions from the

parasites that ran the city? There is some evidence that this fear might at least have dawned on the

more far-sighted of them, especially after the Stevenson debacle of 1986 and the teachers’ strikes

leading up to 1987. Perhaps we can feel some of the ruling class fear in their bombastic prose when

they write: “Chicago is six years into the most radical system-wide urban school reform effort in the

country. The Annenberg Challenge provides an unprecedented opportunity to concentrate the

energy of this reform into an educational renaissance in the classroom.” (Steve Diamond, ‘That

“Guy Who Lives in My Neighborhood”: Behind the Ayers-Obama Relationship,’ noquarterusa.net,

June 19, 2008)

In reality, even before Bill Ayers became engaged in the CAC, patriarch Thomas Ayers of

General Dynamics had already started the ball rolling: ‘The Alliance for Better Chicago Schools

(“ABCs”) was formed then to push for the LSC idea in the Illinois state legislature. Active in the

ABCs was Bill Ayers, Barack Obama’s Developing Communities Project, and Chicago United, a

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 169

group of businessmen concerned about race and education issues founded by Bill Ayers’ father,

Tom Ayers, once CEO of the large Chicago utility, Commonwealth Edison (now Exelon).’ (Steve

Diamond, ‘That “Guy Who Lives in My Neighborhood”: Behind the Ayers-Obama Relationship,’

noquarterusa.net, June 19, 2008)

From the counterinsurgency point of view of Bill Ayers, it was the Local School Council

institutional machinery that mattered most, since these could be turned into a battering ram against

the teachers’ union on the one hand and the board of education bureaucracy on the other, wrecking

both while the municipal bond holders laughed all the way to the bank: ‘…in 1993 the CAC grant

proposal was seen by Ayers as an attempt, in part, to rescue the LSCs. The grant proposal states,

“We envision a process to unleash at the school site the initiative and courage of LSC’s….” Later, it

states “[t]he Local Schools Councils…are important both for guiding educational improvement and

as a means of strengthening America’s democratic traditions.” (Steve Diamond, ‘That “Guy Who

Lives in My Neighborhood”: Behind the Ayers-Obama Relationship,’ noquarterusa.net, June 19,

2008)

Chicago was competing against many other cities for the massive largesse of the Annenberg

Foundation. In writing the grant proposal, Ayers obviously had to show that the Annenberg

Foundation could get more bang for its counterinsurgency buck by investing in the Chicago system:

‘Indeed, the CAC proposal effort led by Ayers and Hallett was a critical part of what the Project

Director of the CAC, Ken Rolling, described as the “political wars” being waged over schools in

Chicago at that time. Ken Rolling was a veteran of those wars because in his previous role he had

been a program officer of the Woods Fund, which supported the school reform effort through its

grants, including grants to Barack Obama’s Developing Communities Project. Other groups in other

cities were competing for the same pool of funds (a total of $500 million made available by

philanthropist Walter Annenberg) and, perhaps even more importantly, other groups in the city of

Chicago with different policy views were applying to receive funds. However, the Ayers/Hallett

proposal was successful in the end with the decision made in late 1994. In January of 1995 the

formal announcement of a grant of $49.2 million was made. That money would have to be matched

by contributions from the private and public sector 2:1 for a total amount over the life of the project

of approximately $150 million dollars to be disbursed in Chicago. (Apparently the actual amount

raised was an additional $60 million for a total of $110 million.) The CAC set up an office in rentfree

space at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where Bill Ayers taught.’ (Steve Diamond, ‘That

“Guy Who Lives in My Neighborhood”: Behind the Ayers-Obama Relationship,’ noquarterusa.net,

June 19, 2008)

The one aspect of the Chicago Annenberg challenge which had no readily evident rational

explanation was the choice of the unknown mediocrity, Barack Hussein Obama, who, as we already

know, had been earmarked by the Trilateral Commission for greater things: ‘The first chairman of

the CAC Board was Barack Obama, at that point, 32 years old and a second year attorney at Davis,

Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a small Chicago law firm. He began the Board position in early 1995

and stepped down from the chairmanship in late 1999, though he remained on the Board until the

CAC phased itself out of existence and handed off its remaining assets to a permanent new

institution, the Chicago Public Education Fund, in 2001. The Board began to meet in March of 1995

and formally incorporated the CAC as a non-profit entity in April 1995. Other board members

included numerous already prominent Chicagoans: Susan Crown, Vice President of the Henry

Crown Company; Patricia A. Graham, President of The Spencer Foundation; Stanley Ikenberry,

President-Emeritus of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Handy Lindsey, Executive

Director of the Field Foundation; Arnold Weber, former President of Northwestern University and

170 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

then President of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago; and Wanda White,

Executive Director of the Community Workshop on Economic Development. Some of these

individuals would resign and be replaced by other equally prominent Chicagoans.’ (Steve Diamond,

‘That “Guy Who Lives in My Neighborhood”: Behind the Ayers-Obama Relationship,’

noquarterusa.net, June 19, 2008)

For practical purposes, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a monster with two heads. One

was the Board, where Obama presided. ‘The second operating entity of the CAC would be the

Collaborative that would represent various constituencies in the Chicago schools and wider

community. […] The co-chair of the CAC’s Collaborative from 1995 until 2000 was Bill Ayers.

Thus, the leaders of the two operative arms of the CAC from its inception until 2000 were Bill

Ayers and Barack Obama. (Steve Diamond, ‘That “Guy Who Lives in My Neighborhood”: Behind

the Ayers-Obama Relationship,’ noquarterusa.net, June 19, 2008) Note the foundation jargon term,

“the collaborative,” which we have seen in a previous chapter.

One of the tasks which Obama and Ayers had to work on together derived from the fact that,

even though the grant proposals had alleged that there was an insatiable hunger for community

control among Chicago parents, there was overwhelming indifference throughout the city to the

Local School Councils, and it soon proved to be very hard to recruit any candidates to run for the

available posts. Accordingly, more foundation money had to be offered to convince parents to run

for the LSCs. (The Chicago local school councils each consisted of the principal, two teachers, six

parents, two community members, and a student representative in the case of high schools.) This

question can be regarded as a crucial experiment which shows that community control of schools is

generally not a spontaneous grass-roots demand by parents, but rather represents a completely

artificial tactic introduced from the outside by cynical foundation operatives for purposes of

manipulation and political wrecking. ‘The Collaborative and the Board became direct players in the

Chicago LSC elections held in 1996. According to the CAC Report: “In 1996 the Chicago Public

Schools were scheduled to hold the fourth election of Local School Council (LSC) representatives

since the school reform of act [sic] of 1988 was passed. As in the past two elections support from

the central office of the Chicago Public Schools appeared to be minimal. Until, that is, members of

the Collaborative coalesced with school reform groups around the city and began to put pressure on

the Chicago Public Schools’ central office to promote the elections both by recruiting enough

candidates for the open seats so that contested elections would be held and by urging parents and

community members to vote. […] The Board approved a grant of $125,000 for this effort. One of

the first grants awarded in 1995 was a $175,000 Implementation Grant to the Small Schools

Workshop. The Workshop had been founded by Bill Ayers in 1992 and was headed up by his

former Weather Underground comrade, Mike Klonsky.’ (Steve Diamond, ‘That “Guy Who Lives in

My Neighborhood”: Behind the Ayers-Obama Relationship,’ noquarterusa.net, June 19, 2008) We

have already seen that to suppose that conflicts between Ayers and Klonsky represented nothing

more than the division of labor between two operatives.

$100 MILLION OF GRANT MONEY, HUNDREDS OF PRINCIPALS FIRED, BUT

“NO MEASURABLE OR SIGNIFICANT GAIN” FOR CHICAGO SCHOOL KIDS

And how did the Annenberg Chicago Challenge pan out? If increasing levels of student

achievement were the goal, it was an abject failure. A posting by Steve Diamond on

noquarterusa.net pointed out that in a ‘study that was done on the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago

Public Schools—the one where Obama was Chairman of the Board, after all that funding which

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 171

included the $50 million from Annenberg and matching funds from state, Federal and other

resources, the study concluded that there was “no measurable or significant gain” on the part of

students.’62 In other words Ayers and Obama promoted a program that spent millions of private and

public funds and accomplished nothing. I would note that the rubric used for this evaluation

included not just student gains in hard core academic achievement areas but also in soft areas such

as self-image, personal efficacy, school attendance, persistence, etc. Voters, bloggers, media

analysts and MSM should be asking an essential question: If Obama was the chair of this Board (I

think for its duration adding up to about 8 years) and nothing was really accomplished to improve

the achievement and capacities of children to learn, what makes us think he will be successful on a

national scale?’63 A good question. The answer must reflect that the goal of the Annenberg Chicago

Challenge never had anything to do with helping students or improving schools. Its goal, and that of

the foundation community that funded it, was social control through the divide-and-conquer

counterinsurgency method of pitting Local School Councils against the unions and the

administration. In this regard, it appears to have been reasonably successful. The Chicago political

crisis of 1986-1987, which might have turned into a mass strike of all working people and

unemployed people against the lunatic policies of the Reagan-Bush-Big Jim Thompson-Thomas

Ayers financiers, was defused and deflected. The LSCs were also somewhat effective in providing

cover for the system to fire principals, managers, and other trained and experienced personnel,

possibly replacing them with political hacks looking for sinecures. Finally, the futility and constant

strife of the LSCs wore out the existing parent activists until the situation was ripe for a partial

privatization under corporate and business auspices, ratcheting everything down yet another big

notch. Soon, the foundation oligarchs could see, the useless burden of universal free compulsory

public education in the United States would cease to exist – a great savings from the point of view

of Wall Street, but the death-knell for representative government in the United States.

THE BIGGEST PROJECT OF OBAMA’S LIFE ENDS IN ABJECT FAILURE

In 2003 the final technical report of the CCSR on the CAC was published. The results were not

pretty. The “bottom line” according to the report was that the CAC did not achieve its goal of

improvement in student academic achievement and nonacademic outcomes. While student test

scores improved in the so-called Annenberg Schools that received some of the $150 million

disbursed in the six years from 1995 to 2001, “This was similar to improvement across the

system….There were no statistically significant differences in student achievement between

Annenberg schools and demographically similar non-Annenberg schools. This indicates that there

was no Annenberg effect on achievement.” The report identified the political conflict between the

Local School Council promotion efforts of the CAC – such as the $2 million Leadership

Development Initiative - as a possible factor hindering a positive impact on student achievement.

(Steve Diamond, ‘That “Guy Who Lives in My Neighborhood”: Behind the Ayers-Obama

Relationship,’ noquarterusa.net, June 19, 2008)

We must therefore conclude that Barack Hussein Obama, in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge,

the biggest and most ambitious project of his life up until 2007, was an abject failure. His efforts

produced no gain for Chicago school students. It should be clear in retrospect why he almost never

talks about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. On the one hand, he would have to talk about his

close personal cooperation with the unrepentant terrorist bomber Bill Ayers. On the other hand, he

would have to dodge embarrassing questions about what the positive impact of all of this sound and

fury had finally been.

172 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

By 1997, the entire LSC community control project was visibly moribund, but it may well have

served its purpose of warding off a political upsurge by a united city against the lakeside financiers.

It had certainly functioned as a colossal manpower sink, consuming the energies of yet another

generation of ignorant and naïve activists. ‘The annual report for 1997 made special mention of the

surrounding political context of the CAC’s work. Director Ken Rolling noted that a goal of the CAC

was “seeking a changed policy environment” but that this “has been the most elusive to date with no

major progress to report at this time. He explained further: “The Challenge began its work in 1995

at the same time a dramatic change in the leadership and management of the Chicago Public

Schools took place. The Illinois state legislature awarded complete control of the…Schools to the

Mayor of Chicago in 1995. A new management team and Reform Board of Trustees was installed

and a major emphasis began on administration, financial stability and accountability measures that

are tied to specific test scores. The Challenge began its program at the time the central

administration of the public schools took off in a different direction.” Indeed, the 1995 law gave the

Mayor and the Board the power to dissolve LSCs – the very bodies that the CAC was trying to

bolster.’ (Steve Diamond, ‘That “Guy Who Lives in My Neighborhood”: Behind the Ayers-Obama

Relationship,’ noquarterusa.net, June 19, 2008) Counter-insurgency operations cannot be Johnny

one note — they must always be modulated and varied according to sharp turns in the political and

economic situation. ‘By the end of this 1999, … Barack Obama would step down from the role of

Board Chair as he anticipated an upcoming run for Congress.’ (Steve Diamond, ‘That “Guy Who

Lives in My Neighborhood”: Behind the Ayers-Obama Relationship,’ noquarterusa.net, June 19,

2008) Obama cultivated his glittering career, while the hapless victims of the Chicago Annenberg

Challenge drifted off into educational mediocrity and personal obscurity.

Evaluations of the impact of Obama’s Annenberg meddling have been largely negative. ‘A

report authored by Dorothy Shipps on the first three years of the Annenberg Challenge program,

when Obama was its Board chair, concluded: “The Challenge sought to build on the momentum of

the 1988 Chicago School Reform Act which had radically decentralized governance of the Chicago

Public Schools.” While apparently several hundred school principals had been fired by the LSCs,

kids were still doing poorly in schools and there was chaos of sorts in the system…. Interestingly,

Shipps concludes that the local control movement in Chicago, though backed by radicals like Ayers,

gave “business the clearest voice in system-wide reform.”’ (Steve Diamond, ‘Who “sent” Obama?’

globallabor.blogspot.com, April 22, 2008) Shipps discovered the obvious post festum when she

pointed out that the scale of the LSCs was too fragmented, too minuscule, to be able to implement

positive reforms; she recommended a district-wide or city-wide assembly, but this is still too narrow

and parochial, since schools cannot be successful unless there are good jobs waiting for the

graduates.

Diamond’s estimate is that the political sponsors of Obama were the extended Ayers family. As

long as we are limited to the purview of Chicago, this is doubtless a sound analysis: ‘Thus, we have

one possible answer to the question: Who “sent” Obama? It was the Ayers family, including Tom,

John, Bill and Bernardine Dohrn. It is highly unlikely that a 30-something second year lawyer

would have been plucked from relative obscurity out of a left wing law firm to head up something

as visible and important in Chicago as the Annenberg Challenge by Bill Ayers if Ayers had not

already known Obama very well. One possibility is that Obama proved himself to Ayers in the

battle for local school control when he was at the DCP in the 80s. One guess as to why Obama does

not play up his educational experience more thoroughly now – it certainly could be of use to him

one would think in beefing up his “I have the experience to be President” argument – is that it

would lead to a renewed discussion of the Ayers connection, which is clearly toxic for Obama. And

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 173

it turns out the impact of the Annenberg Challenge on actual students in Chicago schools is

considered mixed at best, although Bill Ayers deemed it a success on political grounds. Indeed the

1995 and 1999 legislative attempts to recentralize power over the schools in the hands of the mayor

did not quite succeed in wrestling control completely away from the LSCs, instead it helped, in the

words of Alexander Russo, “keep the flame alive for decentralized, community-based school reform

- even as the system was moving in a very different direction.”’ (Steve Diamond, ‘Who “sent”

Obama?’ globallabor.blogspot.com, April 22, 2008) Of course, Obama came from much farther

way – he came from the Trilateral Commission and the worldwide Bilderberger Group.

ABC DEBATE: OBAMA’S BLATANT LIES ABOUT

“ENGLISH PROFESSOR” BILL AYERS

On April 16, 2008, ABC News in the person of Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos

hosted a debate in advance of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. This debate stood out from

more than a score of previous debates because of the refusal of the moderators to capitulate to the

blackmail of the Obamakins and their demand that the Perfect Master be given a free ride. Since

this was the first debate since the explosion of the Jeremiah Wright “God Damn America”

controversy, Obama was asked about his relations with Wright. Obama went into serpentine

contortions in response, at one point affirming that he had “disavowed” Wright, only to have to

backtrack and specify that he had only disavowed the hate-monger’s incendiary statements. Most

offensive to the Obama acolytes was Stephanopoulos’ query about Obama’s relations with the

deranged Weatherman terrorist bomber-provocateur, Bill Ayers. In response, the Perfect Master had

disappeared into a cloud of stuttering, stammering, and tergiversation. On these and other questions

regarding his personal associations and his character, Obama was exposed as a desperate

demagogue running away from most of his own past, while testily harrumphing that the inquiries

were irrelevant. This was network television, and the audience for this debate was by the far largest

of any debate of the 2007-2008 cycle, with 10.7 million viewers, some 96% of whom stayed until

the end. This was in many cases their first exposure to Obama, and they were treated to the

epiphany of a scoundrel.

We can argue that Bill Ayers and his charming consort Bernardine Dohrn, along with Tony

Rezko and the Jeremiah Wright TUCC crowd, represent Obama’s closest and most intimate circle

of backers, sponsors, benefactors, and cronies. Obama was thus lying big time in the Philadelphia

debate when Stephanopoulos asked him about Ayers and the Perfect Master massively played down

the nature of his symbiosis with the Weatherman leader and his pasionaria. As Diamond notes,

‘This likely explains why Obama tried a kind of head fake when asked about Ayers by George

Stephanopoulos in the TV debate with Clinton prior to the Pennsylvania primary. Obama said Ayers

was a “professor of English.” Yet, Obama chaired the Annenberg Challenge for three years and

served on its board for another three years, working closely with Ayers on grants to Chicago

schools. And he did not know that Ayers was a professor of education? That strains credulity.

(Steve Diamond, ‘Who “sent” Obama?’ globallabor.blogspot.com, April 22, 2008)

BILL AYERS IN OBAMA’S KITCHEN CABINET

Diamond summed up: ‘The Chicago Annenberg Challenge allowed Barack Obama and Bill

Ayers to work together, no doubt closely, in the heat of political battle to help disburse more than

$100 million to allies, particularly in the LSCs, in the Chicago School system. Under the

circumstances, it seems more than a bit disingenuous of Senator Obama to dismiss Bill Ayers as

174 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

“some guy who lives in my neighborhood.”’ (Steve Diamond, ‘That “Guy Who Lives in My

Neighborhood”: Behind the Ayers-Obama Relationship,’ noquarterusa.net, June 19, 2008) In

reality, there is every indication that Ayers functions as a close political adviser to Obama, and his

umbilical cord to key parts of the intelligence community who have a say in the actions of the

Perfect Master. As Diamond points out, ‘Perhaps this would be of just historical interest if it could

be firmly established that Bill Ayers no longer has any role in the Obama campaign. But that is not

something we know for sure yet. In a recent television interview with Greta Van Susteren, John

Murtagh, a Republican town council member from Yonkers, New York, said that Ayers is currently

an “advisor” to Obama. Murtagh has a particular and understandable sensitivity to the Ayers-

Obama connection besides his Republican politics: his father was a New York Supreme Court (in

NY the Supreme Court is a trial court) judge who presided over a trial of the “Black Panther 21” in

1970-71…. Murtagh was 9 years old at the time. During the trial Murtagh’s home was fire bombed

and Murtagh claims the Weather Underground was responsible for that bombing along with several

others in “solidarity” with the Panthers. He charges, specifically, that Bill Ayers’ wife Bernardine

Dohrn later took credit (apparently on behalf of the entire WU group) for the bombing.’ (Steve

Diamond, ‘Who “sent” Obama?’ globallabor.blogspot.com, April 22, 2008) Nor is this all. There

are indications that the Weatherpeople regard Obama as one of their own, whose seizure of power

will crown with unimagined success their long march through the institutions began in late 1969

and early 1970 when they went into clandestine and underground life. Does Obama bear the

Weatherman tattoo flaunted by Ayers? Will Obama function as a Weatherman in the White House?

Will he pardon Weatherman fanatic and butcher Dave Gilbert, thanks to whose efforts two cops and

a security guard died in the Brinks robbery attempted by the Weatherpeople?

Large parts of the federal bureaucracy might well be in continuous insurrection against Obama

from his hypothetical first day in office. This would include parts of the Justice Department and

various individual law enforcement officials. Here are some excerpts from an April 18, 2008

interview by CNN’s Lou Dobbs with Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor:

On CNN, April 18 — DOBBS: Bill Ayers, we’re hearing today from Mayor Daley that he also

knows Ayers and he’s just a fine fellow and no problem, don’t be — please don’t be

discomforted by Senator Obama’s relationship with him.

MCCARTHY: Look, of all the people who’ve ever bombed the Pentagon and the State

Department and the New York City police headquarters, I’m sure he’s one of the best. But I —

my sense is that regular Americans aren’t going to see it that way.

DOBBS: Senator Obama, you are declaring rather straight forwardly, is denying some relatively

close relationships that he is suggesting are not — are distant.

MCCARTHY: Yeah, well he’s denying the relationship, but I think more importantly what he’s

trying to obfuscate is that there’s a trajectory to all of this and there’s a theme that runs through

it and whether its some of the statements made by his wife or Reverend Wright or Bernardine

Dohrn and Ayers, the fact is he’s comfortable...Bernardine Dohrn being Ayers’ wife. The other

Weather Underground terrorist who was Ayers’ wife. But, he’s comfortable with people who

hate this country. And I think when he talks about and makes the theme of his campaign

“Change,” and since he hasn’t really explained to us much about the change, we’re entitled to

infer, from the people he’s comfortable with, who are social revolutionaries, the kind of change

he wants to make in America.

DOBBS: You’re including, obviously, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

MCCARTHY: Of course, right.

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 175

DOBBS: And — and Ayers. Others?

MCCARTHY: Well, there’s Rashid Khalidi, who was a recipient of some of the largess that

Obama controlled when he was on the Woods Board. He is somebody who was –

DOBBS: He was on the board with Ayers?

MCCARTHY: Yes, when Obama was on the Woods Board with Ayers, they gave grants to

Rashid Khalidi, and his work…. (Lou Dobbs, CNN, April 18, 2008)

We note once again in passing that the primitive analysis which is typical of right-wing

observers insists on viewing figures like Ayers as authentic radicals or revolutionaries, rather than

the cynical foundation-funded intelligence community operatives which they actually are. In any

case, we can see here that a future President Obama would have a hard time bringing the executive

agencies of his own regime together, quite apart from his grandiose promises of bringing together

the majority and the opposition in Congress.

OBAMA FANATICS WANT THE AYERS QUESTION DECLARED TABOO

Even while the Philadelphia debate was continuing, there was much wailing and gnashing of

teeth among the Obamakins squatting in the outer darkness. The shrillest of the effete snobs that

evening was probably Tom Shales, the television critic of the Washington Post, which had long

since joined in the swoon for the new messiah. Shales howled that the debate “was another step

downward for network news – in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia

and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in

shoddy, despicable performances…Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and

gossipy trivia that has already been hashed and rehashed.” Shales mocked Gibson for “looking

prosecutorial and portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class.” Obama had brought

“refreshing candor” into the debate. The moderators could only be compared to “dogs.” (Tom

Shales, “In the Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser is ABC,” Washington Post, April 17, 2008)

The center-right oligarch David Brooks, by contrast, found that the ABC questions were

“excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions,

contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each

looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault. We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah

Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W.

Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will

respond to these sorts of symbolic issues. The Democrats have a problem. All the signs point to a

big Democratic year, and I still wouldn’t bet against Obama winning the White House, but his

background as a Hyde Park liberal is going to continue to dog him. No issue is crushing on its own,

but it all adds up. For the life of me I can’t figure out why he didn’t have better answers on Wright

and on the “bitter” comments. The superdelegates cannot have been comforted by his performance.

Final grades: ABC: A; Clinton: B; Obama: D+” (David Brooks, No Whining About the Media, New

York Times, April 16, 2008) The ABC questions, far from representing a modern Torquemada

treatment, had barely scratched the surface concerning Obama’s relation to Ayers.

THE JOYCE FOUNDATION AND RULING CLASS PLANS FOR GUN CONTROL

Larry Johnson has reported that for eight years, Obama sat on the board of Chicago’s Joyce

Foundation — earning $70,000 in compensation — an influential board that ‘funneled almost $3

million in grants to political groups opposing gun rights,” according to Politico.com reporter

176 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Kenneth Vogel. This raised another duplicity problem for Obama, since his campaign has worked to

assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t

want to take away their guns. As Jarlyn at TalkLeft indicated, “At Wednesday’s debate, Barack

Obama wouldn’t say what his position is on the DC law banning handguns.” In her view, Obama

“dodged, saying he wasn’t familiar with the facts of the case.” She had the audacity to wonder

didn’t Obama answer the question at the debate instead of weaving and bobbing? Was it because he

didn’t want to alienate PA voters, many of whom favor strong gun ownership rights? And, did he

fail to tell the truth? According to the said Jeralyn, in November, “his campaign told the Chicago

Tribune he supported the ban. (Chicago Tribune November 20, 2007.)’ (Larry Johnson, “Obama on

Board That Funded Handgun Bans,” Noquarterusa.net, April 20, 2008)

The Joyce Foundation website announces: “Our program areas are Education, Employment,

Environment, Gun Violence, Money and Politics, and Culture. We focus our grant making on

initiatives that promise to have an impact on the Great Lakes region, specifically the states of

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. A limited number of environment

grants are made to organizations in Canada. Education grant making in K-12 focuses on Chicago,

Cleveland, and Milwaukee; early childhood grant making focuses on Illinois and Wisconsin.

Culture grants are primarily focused on the Chicago metropolitan area, except for the Joyce

Awards, which extend to other Midwest cities. We do not generally support capital proposals,

endowment campaigns, religious activities, commercial ventures, direct service programs, or

scholarships.” This adds up to social engineering and mind control. Between the role of the Ford

Foundation as the flagship US counterinsurgency foundation, plus the influence of the terrorist

Bill Ayers as a theoretician of education, it is easy to see how Obama was able to become a

beneficiary of the Joyce Foundation after having served on the Gamaliel Foundation and the

Woods Fund, two other Ford satellites.

According to a focus group set up by the Pennsylvania television station WPVI held the night of

the debate, “Senator Clinton is the debate winner, at least according to our focus group. 23% believe

Senator Obama won while 50% believed Senator Clinton won.” (WPVI Post-Debate Analysis,

April 16, 2008) According to Chuck Todd of NBC News, Obama “did not have a good night….His

answer on Ayers and the flag question were simply weak; He seemed unprepared for them; Kinda

surprising because he normally has a decent rant against “old politics” and yet “old politics”

questions seemed to stump him.” (NBC First Read, April 16, 2008) The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder

opined that there was “no way Obama could have fared worse. Chris Cillizza noted that Obama

“struggled quite a bit more when asked to answer for Wright, his former pastor.” (Washington Post,

The Fix, April 16, 2008) Katharine Seeyle of the New York Times was impressed by how much

better Hillary Clinton fared: “She’s becoming expansive, seemingly in her element as she goes into

details; Mr. Obama does not look as thrilled to be still standing there.” (New York Times, The

Caucus, April 16, 2008) A Philadelphia commentator chimed in: “Obama is again less certain, and

rambles a bit when asked about the Washington D.C. gun ban. Gibson asks him to deny that he has

ever advocated a complete ban on hand guns in 1996. Obama says no. But whatever the truth, no

other answer is possible.” (Philadelphia Inquirer Blog, April 16, 2008) This was actually a case of

bare-faced, outright lying by Obama, since he denied the authenticity of a policy questionnaire

which bore his own handwriting. Unnoticed by most was yet another pro-GOP testimonial by

Obama, who this time pontificated that the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush was “wise” – this

of the criminal adventurer who bombed Iraq back into the stone age in order to re-impose the

regime of his own former business partner, the slave-holding Emir of Kuwait, and by doing so

started the long agony of the US military presence in the Gulf.

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 177

BITTERGATE BY THE GOLDEN GATE;

FASCIST HATRED OF THE WORKING CLASS

During a visit to San Francisco, Obama unwisely blurted out a series of remarks which revealed

the extraordinary degree he shares the outlook of the present day foundation world. Obama showed

himself to be a very reckless individual, not capable of hiding thoughts and ideas which are proving

extremely damaging to his political ambition. This was especially the case when he turned away

from the glass plates of the Teleprompter and had to speak extemporaneously.

One can imagine Obama meeting with a group of wealthy, ultra left, San Francisco elitists from

whom he expects to get enormous amounts of bundled contributions for his political campaign. We

can imagine some elitist of the general type of Gordon Getty, the partial heir to the Getty oil fortune

and a person who shares with the Emperor Nero the conviction that he is the greatest lyric artist of

the age. Getty or someone like him must have asked Obama why he is doing so poorly in Ohio and

Pennsylvania, and the perfect Master is cut to the quick, since these are obviously the states which a

Democrat must win in order to get the presidency. Obama therefore responds with these fateful

words, which projected the questions of oligarchy, elitism, and class consciousness into the center

of the US political debate in a way so extraordinary that it has not been seen in many, many

decades:

OBAMA: “So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we

are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about

government. The people are mis-appre...I think they’re misunderstanding why the

demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just

ascribes it to ‘white working-class don’t wanna work — don’t wanna vote for the black guy.’

That’s...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind

of implies that it’s sort of a race thing. Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big

industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they

feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being

cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by —

it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laughter),

then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter). But — so the questions you’re most likely

to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What’s the concrete thing?’ What

they wanna hear is — so, we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — close tax

loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama’s gonna give tax

breaks to middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide health care for every American. So we’ll

go down a series of talking points. But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people

persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You

go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest,

the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through

the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has

said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not

surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people

who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to

explain their frustrations. Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what

you’ll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can

go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama

178 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just

be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.”64

This very imprudent outburst reveals much about the characteristic outlook of the foundationfunded

political intellectual in the United States today. First of all, this utterance is dripping with

patronizing condescension and contempt for the people he is describing. Obama, well-trained by

his procommunist anthropologist mother, has been in effect on fieldwork in Ohio and Pennsylvania,

and is reporting to a group of his peers about the strange mores of the peculiar populations he has

been attempting to profile and manipulate, with limited success. Obama is trying as hard as he can

to treat the American people like malleable ethnographic material, but they have realized this and

do not like it.

Obama does not mention that the deindustrialization of the United States, and thus the

destruction of the economic viability of the communities he has visited, were the direct result of the

policies imposed by his own Trilateral Commission backers back at the time almost 30 years ago

when Trilateral member Jimmy Carter, probably acting at the prodding of Trilateral member

Zbigniew Brzezinski, place Trilateral member Paul Adolph Volcker at the helm of the Federal

Reserve; it was Volcker’s 22% prime rate which effectively destroyed the industrial infrastructure

of the United States, including especially its export industries. This kind of historical background is

seldom included in the analysis developed by a bankers’ boy when it comes time to assign the

blame.

It is not surprising that Obama is contemptuous of religion, gun ownership, and sports shooting.

The reference to “antipathy” obviously suggests that the people he is dealing with really are racists

after all. Most interesting of all is the reference to “anti-trade,” since the suggestion here is that

anyone who disagrees with economic and financial globalization is somehow irrational, anti-social,

or even paranoid. This puts Obama’s statement closely in line with the classics of academic and

foundation-backed anti-worker ideology. We will not try to develop here the case that economic and

financial globalization have effectively wrecked the world economy, leading to an overall world

immiseration in the form of declining standards of living, and declining economic opportunity. We

have made this case already in Surviving the Cataclysm. Today, the financial order of globalization

is dissolving before the horrified eyes of world public opinion, with the entire system going to the

brink of a systemic explosion of the world banking system on the Ides of March with the looming

bankruptcy of Bear Stearns, which threatened to set off chain reaction bankruptcies throughout the

world financial community in 2008.

One of the sources for the idea that anyone who opposes the prevailing economic and financial

line of Wall Street, the US Treasury, and the Federal Reserve is suffering from some form of

psychopathology is the work of the deeply dishonest and much reviled Columbia University

historian, Richard Hofstadter. Hofstadter was the author of “The Paranoid Style in American

Politics,” (Harper’s, 1964), and Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. He was especially brutal in

his slanders of the late 19th century protest movement among farmers who called themselves the

Populists. Hofstadter was one of the leaders of the school of “consensus historians,” an approach

which he described with the remark that “It seems to me to be clear that a political society cannot

hang together at all unless there is some kind of consensus running through it.” His favorite

technique was to psychoanalyze protest movements, always coming to the conclusion that the

dissidents and critics of the established regime were hopelessly irrational, after probing into their

unconscious psychological motives, status anxieties, hatreds, and paranoia, presenting these

syndromes as the real cause for their political discontent. His favorite way of dismissing a critic was

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 179

to accuse that person of suffering from a “status panic.” Hofstadter’s work boils down to the idea

that politics is a morass of fear, hatred, provincial ignorance, and insanity, and that the only thing to

do is to support the Establishment and its existing order at all costs. Inevitably, Hofstadter had been

a communist, but he insulted Franklin D. Roosevelt by dismissing him as “The Patrician as

Opportunist.” Conservative commentator George Will once described Hofstadter as “the iconic

public intellectual of liberal condescension,” who “dismissed conservatives as victims of character

flaws and psychological disorders — a ‘paranoid style’ of politics rooted in ‘status anxiety,’ etc.

Conservatism rose on a tide of votes cast by people irritated by the liberalism of condescension.”65

Hofstadter, like so many pompous professors, was little more than a paid apologist of the financier

ruling class.

And even such ideas as Hofstadter had were not really original, since most of them came from

the 19th century French sociologist Emile Durkheim. Durkheim’s critique of religion is based on an

idea drawn from Feuerbach that God’s kingdom is merely the projection into eternity and theology

of the existing social relations in a given human group. Durkheim taught that God was “society

divinized,” that “God is society, writ large.”66 Here again there was a very strong overtone that

anyone in the position of a critic, a naysayer, an outsider, a maverick, or a protester was an example

of social pathology rather than being a valuable corrective to the undeniable abuses of a failing

system.

Most importantly, Obama’s Bittergate comments documented that once again his deep hatred for

the American working class, a hatred which constitutes the first and central point in the

Fanon/Weatherman political doctrine: blue-collar white workers are racist, warmongering

“honkies” who have been bought off by capitalist concessions and integrated into the system so that

no revolution, but only bloody race war, remains possible. This concept, in turn, is congenial to the

bosses of the foundations, and to the US financier oligarchy in general, since it happens to coincide

so totally with their plan for a campaign of savage austerity, draconian reductions in the standard of

living, and related genocidal policies against US working people as a means of dealing with the

current world economic and financial depression. Jimmy Carter was of course a useful tool to the

Trilateral bankers, but his effectiveness was sometimes undermined by the qualms, reticence, and

second thoughts suggested by the Christianity he professed. With Obama, there is no such danger;

quite the contrary, Obama will bring to his appointed task a ferocious criminal energy which will

help him to attempt to flay the American people alive.

OBAMA: A DEEP COVER AGENT OF THE 1313 GANG?

The dominant component controlling Obama in terms of his policies and tasks is, as we have

stressed, the Trilateral Commission, founded with Rockefeller family money by David Rockefeller

and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s controller and Obama’s top political director. In a general way,

Obama can be accurately described as a controlled asset of the Rockefeller family and its allies. The

Rockefeller apparatus of political and social manipulation which is sponsoring Obama has been

around for a long time – more than a century. For them, manipulating elections is nothing new. The

University of Chicago is a long-standing center for Rockefeller subversion. As we have seen, the

University of Chicago 1313 gang was set up with the help of the Spelman Fund, a foundation

created in December 1928 by the outrageous robber barons and sociopathic monopolists John D.

Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller Jr., the great-grandfather and grandfather of today’s fanatical

Obama backer Senator John D. “Jay” Rockefeller IV of West Virginia. The Spelman Fund got $10

million 1928 dollars from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, which were to be used for

social engineering in favor of financier interests in the field of child study, “parent education,” race

180 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

relations, and cooperation with public agencies–a whole range of meddling with the bitter clingers,

and not mere humanitarian concerns. The mission statement of the oligarchical Spelman Fund

bluntly stated that “the interest of the Spelman Fund is not in improvement of some social practice

or function, but is rather in the contribution which maybe made to all aspects of public welfare

through increase of efficiency, technical competence, and rational purposefulness in the operation

of the machinery of government.” Not social progress, but totalitarian control was the goal.

A recent journalistic account of 1313 informs us: ‘1313, completed in 1938, embodied the vision

of two men, Charles E. Merriam, and Louis Brownlow. Brownlow had forged a career (without

benefit of formal education) as a city manager and as a forceful advocate for the public service

professions. Merriam was a University of Chicago political science professor with a bent for

activism that led to service as a Chicago alderman and to two (unsuccessful) runs for the Mayoralty.

The two men conceived 1313 as a vibrant center for (in the words of a 1963 booklet) “the

improvement of the organization, administrative techniques, and methods of government –

municipal, county, state, and federal – in the United States.” Within a few years, 1313 had clearly

become a nerve center for American public administration. By 1963, it was organizational home to

22 non-profit entities, including: American Public Works Association, American Public Welfare

Association, Council of State Governments. American Society of Planning Officials, American

Society of Public Administration, National Legislative Conference, Public Administration Service,

National Association of State Budget Officers, and the National Association of Attorneys General.

Proximity was a key factor in the Merriam-Brownlow concept: proximity of the building’s

organizational inhabitants both to each other and to the resources of the University of Chicago. The

lively, continuous, cross-fertilizing exchanges ensuing from these proximities were to advance the

professionalization of public administration in the U.S.’67 1313 appears as a Rockefeller deployment

running parallel to European fascism, and aiming at the destruction, under the banner of good

government and efficiency, of the large urban political machines which were to be so important in

the 1932-33 coming of the New Deal, which the reactionary Rockefellers were eager to see headed

off.

AXELROD’S 1313 GANG AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER

Some of the 1313 gang’s efforts were disrupted by World War II, but the 1313 operatives were

quick to bounce back: ‘First, the 1313-Spelman boys were thinking hard about the ways and means

to organize a New World Order. A lot of them were involved in the brainstorming that was to

give birth to the new international organizations: their concern for integrating public administration

had now a new level, the international one, in the hope that it would be possible to build a more

efficient system than the League of Nations.’ Rockefeller-funded 1313 operatives played key roles

in creating the United Nations, UNESCO, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the

United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), which dealt with refugees and

displaced persons, the World Bank, and other components of the supernational bureaucracy. To

each of these organisms the Rockefeller men imparted their characteristic features of sinister

cruelty, manipulation, and the shameless pursuit of world supremacy for the Anglo-American

financier oligarchy. The 1313 gang is thus central to the efforts for new world order: ‘Thus, the

Ford consolidated the work of international organization that had begun in the 1930s, placing the

urban international under discrete but effective American patronage. It added stone to what could

be called a “Chicago consensus” on urban issues at the international scale, this consensus being

circulated through the net of links created since the 1930s, and put in action thanks to the

overlapping personnel of the Ford, the Chicago organizations, the international societies, and the

IV. Apprenticeship with Foundation-Funded Terrorists: Ayers and Dohrn 181

international institutions. It needs more work to be able to say if the US involvement supported or

engineered by the Big Foundations changed the way in which the city was imagined at the

international scale, or rather created some new frame in which the city was imagined and managed.

It seems that the big foundations heavily contributed to create a new market for governmental

consultancy, quite close in its operation to the one that had been created on the domestic scene in

the 1930s. A vital role in this development was the one played by 1313 leaders, when they

cooperated with the Spelman and when they shaped the action of the Ford.’68 Here, in typical

barbarous foundation-speak, is a good description of the interlocking nests of foundation operatives

which constitute the political, social, and intellectual milieu from which Obama has emerged: the

foundations.

During the Eisenhower years, right-wing critics of the financier elite inevitably viewed the 1313

gang – in reality the proponents of a collectivism based on Wall Street finance capital, not the

proletariat — as tinged with communism, and thus as ‘a secret nest and nexus of totalitarian evil in

the U.S. One lead voice in the chorus of accusations was a woman from southern California named

Jo Hindman. In 1959 and 1960 she published six articles in the American Mercury magazine that

identified an insidious threat to American values and traditions that she termed “Metropolitan

Government” – Metro, for short. In a 1963 book entitled Terrible 1313 Revisited, Hindman

disclosed to the world that “. . . .in the late 1950’s, location of the Metro capital was discovered at

1313 E. 60th Street, Chicago 37, Illinois, a twenty-two organization clearing house. This arsenal of

totalitarianism spews Metro directives, programs, and projects all over target U.S.A….In concept,

practices, and in rapidly multiplying instances, Metro has wrecked private homes, businesses,

property rights, and the ballot franchise. Upon the shambles of these basic concepts in American

government, Metro seeks to force upon Americans collectivized Metropolitan Government, totally.”

Metro’s key devices as enumerated by Hindman included zoning, public health measures, building

codes, urban renewal and transjurisdictional authorities like the New York Port Authority. An

Internet search still finds many references to Terrible 1313 on right-wing websites today.” (Bruce

Thomas, “1313’s Hidden History,” Hyde Park Herald, May 23, 2004) Ms. Hindman’s analysis may

have lacked sophistication, but she was surely on firm ground when she ascribed a basic world

outlook of malevolence and oligarchical arrogance to the 1313 gang. This look back at 1313 as the

later spawning ground for David Axelrod has also provided us with the immediate pre-history of the

Ford Foundation “community control” and “local control” counterinsurgency methods of the late

1960s.

Now a new generation of the 1313 project is poised to take power in the person of Ford-

Rockefeller operative Obama, the Manchurian candidate whose campaign is dominated by David

Axelrod, an operative who owes his training to the 1313 operation.

Obama’s sordid associations suffered another implicit blow on the eve of the Pennsylvania

primary, when Pope Benedict XVI concluded a visit to Washington and New York with the

benediction, “God bless America,” as he boarded his plane for the journey back to Rome. Many

recalled the “No! No! No! God damn America!” rant of the satanic racist provocateur Jeremiah

Wright of the foundation-funded black liberation theology synthetic religion, from whom the

Perfect Master had imbibed hatred and political support for two decades.

CHAPTER V: OBAMA’S HEART OF DARKNESS: REZKO,

AUCHI, ALSAMMARAE, AND CHICAGO GRAFT

“I am the first one to acknowledge that it was a boneheaded move….” – Obama

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” – Obama

“Illinois is awash in scandal and corruption.” – Jay Stewart, Illinois Better Government

Association

“The Illinois Combine… the bipartisan Illinois political combine.” – US Senator Peter Fitzgerald

If Obama ever reaches the White House, he will certainly be classified as one of the most corrupt

winners of a presidential election in the history of our country. Past presidents from Grant to

Harding have been generally considered corrupt, but it is likely that a future Obama administration

would eclipse them all. As this chapter will make clear, Obama has climbed out of a veritable

sewer of corruption, crime, graft, bribery, kickbacks and rake offs to assume his current role as

seraphic advocate of good government and public probity. Obama may not be the most corrupt

individual ever to approach the presidency, but he is in all probability the person in whom the

reality of corruption and a hypocritical pretense of clean government are most at variance. In this

sense, Obama qualifies as a hypocrite greater than Molière’s Tartuffe, greater than Dickens’ Mr.

Pecksniff in Martin Chuzzlewit.

At the center of Obama’s universe of corruption are three godfathers. They are all Levantine

Arabs from the eastern Mediterranean, corsairs of those dark seas where dirty machine politics and

illegal financial manipulations flow together. The first is Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a nominal

Catholic from the port of Aleppo in Syria, who has been Obama’s most immediate sponsor, backer,

friend, and bagman during his entire political career. Rezko has probably bilked the public treasury

for something approaching one hundred million dollars in the form of public-and private

partnerships allegedly designed to rehabilitate, renovate, and restore decayed slum properties and

make them fit for human habitation. In reality, the properties have been given over to rats and

cockroaches, while Rezko has grown fabulously rich. Obama and his wife Michelle personally

participated in this ill-gotten gain when Rezko assisted them in acquiring the bombastic and

ostentatious mansion in the Kenwood district in which this nouveau riche couple now resides.

Rezko got his start in Chicago opening Subway sandwich shops in places that needed city

concessions. Rezko then became close to Jabir Herbert Muhammad, former manager of

heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali and son of the late Nation of Islam leader, Elijah

Muhammad, and he entered active politics in 1983 to support the successful mayoral candidacy of

Harold Washington, Chicago’s first black mayor.

The second of Obama’s three godfathers is Nadhmi Auchi, who was born in Iraq, professes the

Roman Catholic religion, and is ranked as the eighth (or 18th, depending on the account you read)

richest person in the United Kingdom with a personal fortune approaching £2,000,000,000 or about

$4 billion. In 2003, Auchi was convicted of fraud in the Elf Aquitaine bribery scandal, probably the

largest corruption investigation in the history of postwar Europe. Auchi has a 15 month suspended

sentence hanging over his head. The Elf scandal came complete with accusations against former

French police Minister Charles Pasqua and former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas, plus the

involvement of the Corsican mafia and various Freemasonic lodges. The basic charge was that a

network including scores of oligarchs had conspired to lose the French state owned oil company

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 183

Elf-Aquitaine of about 3 billion French francs (about $750 million), principally during the 1980s

and 1990s. As a newspaper account related at the time of the Elf trial,

Another powerful figure whose dealings were examined by the magistrates is a British-Iraqi

businessman, Nadhmi Auchi. Defense attorneys said the magistrates investigated Mr. Auchi’s

alleged role in Elf’s 1991 purchase of the Spanish oil company, Ertoil, from its Kuwaiti owner.

According to French press reports, Mr. Auchi helped Elf by initially buying the company

quickly - and avoiding regulatory delays - and then selling it on to Elf. Defense attorneys said

Mr. Auchi allegedly received a commission from Elf of more than 300 million French francs for

his role. Among the magistrates’ questions is whether Mr. Auchi funneled any “retrocommissions”

on the deal back to Elf executives or political figures in France. Commissions

and corporate bribes for foreign officials were legal under French law at the time - indeed, they

were tax deductible. But it was illegal to kick money back to France through these so-called

retro-commissions, which nonetheless are thought to have been widespread on major oil and

arms deals. Mr. Auchi has denied any wrongdoing, and defense attorneys said he had offered to

buy Ertoil back and repay any commissions he received. But he has refused to appear in France

before the magistrates, who have issued an international arrest warrant for him. Although Mr.

Auchi’s name is almost unknown to the French or British public, he is sometimes described as

the eighth-richest man in Britain, with a broad portfolio of assets grouped under his holding

company, General Mediterranean. At one time, he was also reputed to be the largest individual

shareholder in the French bank, Banque Paribas, and a member of its international advisory

board. According to press reports, the French government last year seized his shares in Paribas,

said to be worth $500 million. Queried about his holdings Thursday, Paribas failed to respond.

(Joseph Fitchett and David Ignatius, “Lengthy Elf Inquiry Nears Explosive Finish, International

Herald Tribune, February 1, 2002)69

Aiham Alsammarae (also known as Ayham al-Samarie or Ahyam al Samarrai) is the third of

Obama’s godfathers, and a picaresque figure in the annals of international crime. Alsammarae is

officially listed as a Sunni Arab Iraqi politician and the former Iraqi Minister of Electricity. In his

ministerial post, Alsammarae was accused of looting funds from the Iraqi Electricity Ministry

during the reign of the feckless neocon proconsul, Paul “Jerry” Bremer, the Viceroy of the so-called

Coalition Provisional Authority. In August 2006 Al-Samarie was arrested on corruption charges

involving irregularities in the letting of contracts and the misappropriation of millions of dollars. He

was convicted in October 2006 of corruption relating to a $200,000 generator purchase, and was

sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. In December 2006, his conviction for corruption was thrown

out, but he remained in jail awaiting trial for twelve additional corruption cases. Alsammarae fled

his trial in Iraq on corruption charges after hiring Blackwater USA to break him out of prison. He

currently resides in Chicago. . Alsammarae’s international flight to escape prosecution on felony

corruption charges was openly aided and abetted by the Bush regime, since an American plane

carried him out of Iraq to Jordan. Alsammarae is one of the international jackals whose looting of

Iraq under the Coalition Provisional Authority helped to created the armed backlash of a national

resistance which has so far cost the United States well over 4000 dead.70

Now, o muse, let Nixon’s Bebe Rebozo be silent; let Albert Fall of Harding’s Teapot Dome and

Grant’s Credit Mobilier sink into obscurity. Let LBJ’s Billy Sol Estes and Reagan’s Gorbanifar and

Kashoggi go gibbering into Hades, while Carter’s Bert Lance and Clinton’s Marc Rich retreat to the

shadows wrapped in Sherman Adams’ vicuna coats from the Eisenhower era. A new champion of

crime and logothete of corruption is at hand, and he is Obama.

184 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

THEN: TINKER TO EVERS TO CHANCE;

NOW: ALSAMMARAE TO AUCHI TO REZKO TO OBAMA

Obama has boasted and strutted about his alleged October 2002 speech opposing the idea of a

US attack on Iraq, but it is quite possible that blood money looted from the Coalition Provisional

Authority may have found its way into Obama’s infamous Kenwood mansion. The old Chicago

Cubs double play went from Tinker to Evers to Chance. Obama’s new triple play of corruption may

have gone from Alsammarae to Auchi to Rezko to Obama, with the US taxpayer being one of the

main victims. As Jerome Corsi commented, “Following this twisted trail of suspicious millions,

investigative reporters have drawn a line from Obama to Rezko to Saddam Hussein’s Oil for Food

scandal, with the key connecting point being billionaire Nadhmi Auchi.”71

Most of the funding of Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority came from the Bush regime,

and this was the money appropriated from the Iraqi Electricity Ministry by Alsammarae. Might

Alsammarae then have transferred some of these funds to Auchi in London in the course of certain

joint ventures in which these two were engaged? Might some of those same dollars then have

made up part of a $3.5 million loan from Auchi to Rezko? Such money might have helped Rezko

recoup some of his largesse to Barky involved in the earlier below-cost purchase of the lot next door

to Obama’s mansion, a transaction which was indispensable to allow Barky and Michelle to get

control of the property they wanted and later to expand the size of their yard:

When Obama bought his mansion in Chicago’s Kenwood neighborhood, Rezko’s wife Rita,

purchased adjoining land for $625,000 – land that the house’s owners insisted on selling at the

same time. Seven months later, she sold the Obamas one-sixth of her lot, for $105,000, so they

could expand their yard.72

According to another account, this time from a left liberal source:

Troubling to the Obamas’ image of civic rectitude is their entanglement with a campaign

contributor named Antoin (Tony) Rezko in a 2005 real-estate deal. (Rezko is now awaiting trial

on corruption charges.) That year, as the Tribune reported, the Obamas moved to a $1.65-

million Georgian Revival mansion in Hyde Park, which features a thousand-bottle wine cellar

and bookcases made of Honduran mahogany. On the day they bought the house, Rita Rezko,

Tony’s wife, purchased the adjacent lot, which was wooded and empty, for $625,000. After the

deal went through, Michelle contacted the city’s landmarks commission, which she had served

on, and received an e-mail from a deputy commissioner with suggestions for obtaining permits

to erect a fence between the parcels. The Obamas paid for legal, architectural, and landscaping

work, while Rezko got the bill for the fence’s construction, for fourteen thousand dollars. (New

Yorker, March 11, 2008)

The impudence and flagrance of this corrupt transaction underline once again what can only be

called Obama’s megalomania, a sense that he has been absolved of obedience to the law in the same

way that earlier false messiahs have proclaimed the suspension of all the rules. It was reckless folly

for Obama to insist on getting the mansion with an assist from an organized crime figure, but he

went ahead anyway. This is the same kind of antinomian mentality which we can detect in the

crimes of presidents from Nixon to Bush. As Pringle comments,

Obama’s entering into real estate deals with Rezko, while it was public knowledge that he was

under investigation for funneling illegal contributions to Illinois politicians, was not a

“boneheaded” move, it was motivated by pure greed. While knowing that he would get caught

up in a major scandal, Obama went ahead with the deal because he and his wife wanted that

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 185

mansion, with four fireplaces, six bathrooms, and a wine cellar, period. (Evelyn Pringle,

opednews.com)

THE ILLINOIS BIPARTISAN COMBINE; MOTHER SHIP FOR OBAMA

At the center of this worldwide network of crime and intrigue we find the one form of bipartisan

political cooperation to which Obama is sincerely devoted: this sinister centerpiece is the bipartisan

Illinois Combine, a continuing criminal enterprise under the definitions of the RICO statute through

which a gang of racketeers composed of elected officials of the Democratic and Republican parties

have systematically looted and despoiled the public treasuries of the city of Chicago, Cook County,

and the state of Illinois in particular. In his specific capacity as a ward heeling machine hack

political operative, Obama looks to this criminal bipartisan Illinois Combine as his mother ship.

Due to the pervasive presence and overwhelming rapacity of the bipartisan Illinois Combine, it may

well be that Illinois and Chicago specifically represent the most filthy and corrupt jurisdictions

anywhere in the United States today. How ironic that Obama, the self-styled angel of clean

government, has chosen to climb out of this repulsive sewer.

The working hypothesis of this book is that the Rezko conviction, which may well be followed

by similar convictions of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and of Chicago Mayor Daley, will not

be used by Soros and the Trilateral financiers to sabotage the candidacy of their own handpicked

bankers’ boy during the 2008 contest. This would of course represent a self-defeating exercise in

futility, a contradiction in terms. It is instead likely as Operation Board Games represents a

capability which will be kept in reserve for the future, should it ever become necessary for the

banking faction to remind the megalomaniac Obama about who is boss. If Barky becomes too

rambunctious, he can be threatened with indictment and incarceration using the testimony of his

longtime crony Rezko. Alternatively, Operation Board Games and the Rezko conviction might be

used as convenient detonation devices, should the Trilateral bankers ever feel the need to jettison

their puppet in a big hurry. This use of a large-scale federal investigation of the corrupt operations

of a statewide political machine recalls a similar pattern which emerged around the puppet President

Harry S. Truman, who could always be disciplined by reminding him that his patron and the

architects of his political career, boss Tom Pendergast, had been sent to the federal penitentiary in

1939, where Harry could also be sent at any time if he were to forget whose servant he actually was.

This grim reality of the Rezko conviction being available to enforce permanent puppet status on

Obama, no matter what the latter might desire to do once he got to the White House, is yet another

consideration for voters looking for an independent-minded president in 2008.

The Rezko case, like a lugubrious Greek chorus, provided an ominous counterpoint to Obama’s

activities during the primary season. Rezko was arrested at his home in Wilmette, Illinois on

January 29 by federal agents and was taken forthwith to the hoosegow. Federal authorities said that

Rezko had violated the conditions of his bail bond. Jury selection for the Rezko trial began about a

month later. At this time, the Chicago newspapers were much more aggressive than the swooning

national media who made up most of the press corps that was accompanying Obama on his

campaign travels. None of the national pundits was the least bit interested in the fact that the

Perfect Master had such a dirty godfather, but the Chicago types were more hard-bitten. Chicago

papers demanded that Obama come clean, issuing the following set of demands just as the Rezko

trial preparations were beginning:

Jury selection began Monday in the trial of political influence peddler Tony Rezko. This would

be the time — before a single witness takes the stand — for Barack Obama to finally share

186 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

every detail of his relationship with Rezko. Rezko stands accused of funneling state business to

companies that lined his pockets and made campaign contributions to Gov. Blagojevich. Rezko

allegedly directed $10,000 to Obama’s 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate. For months, Sun-

Times investigative reporters have had a standing request to meet with Obama, face to face, to

get answers to questions such as these: How many fund-raisers did Rezko throw for Obama?

Obama is donating $150,000 to charity that Rezko brought into the campaign. But how much in

all did Rezko raise? Did Rezko find jobs for Obama backers in the Blagojevich administration

or elsewhere? Why did Obama only recently admit — after Bloomberg News broke the story —

that Rezko had toured his South Side mansion with him in 2004 before he bought it? Dribs and

drabs of people’s lives have a most unfortunate way of coming out in trials.’ (Chicago Sun-

Times, “Sen. Obama, time to call us about Rezko: (312) 321-2417,” March 4, 2008)

FITZGERALD DELIBERATELY SHIELDED OBAMA IN THE REZKO TRIAL

US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, whose status as a high-level enforcer for the ruling class had

been established during the Scooter Libby prosecution, elected not to bring Obama’s name into the

Rezko trial at the numerous points where mentioning Obama would have been pertinent. Even in

the original indictment against Rezko, Fitzgerald’s office had bent over backwards to avoid

negative publicity for Obama: ‘The list of names in the indictment includes about eight persons

referred to as “Co-Schemers,” and reads like a “who’s who list” of major campaign donors to

Obama, Blagojevich, Daley and other powerful Illinois politicians. Blagojevich is referred to as

“Public Official A,” Obama is referred to as a “political candidate,” and there is a list of

“Individuals” from “Individual A” all the way up to “Individual HH.”’ (Evelyn Pringle,

opednews.com) The same tender regard for Obama’s reputation continued through the entire Rezko

trial: ‘Newly unsealed documents show that prosecutors sought to call witnesses to testify about

Rezko’s ties to Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. The Illinois senator was

the recipient of “straw” campaign contributions made by others on behalf of Rezko — money that

Obama has since given to charities, but only after he got caught. The documents indicate that

prosecutors considered offering witnesses to explore why Rezko used others to contribute to Obama

and also to Blagojevich, and U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve ruled that they could. But they did

not end up offering any such testimony during the trial. “Witnesses will testify that Rezko was a

long-standing supporter and fund-raiser of Barack Obama,” prosecutors wrote.74 This deliberate

decision to spare Obama for now, while his chief godfather and donor was hustled off to the federal

penitentiary, supports the Truman-Pendergast hypothesis of how the entire Rezko and Operation

Board Games verdicts are likely to be used in the future to ensure that Obama remains under strict

financier control.

OBAMA: “THIS ISN’T THE TONY REZKO I KNEW”

Rezko was then convicted just after the last primary elections were held:

One-time Barack Obama political fundraiser Tony Rezko has been convicted in federal court in

Chicago of corruption charges in a kickback scheme involving the Illinois state government. Rezko

was convicted of 12 counts of mail and wire fraud, two counts of corrupt solicitation and two counts

of money laundering. Rezko allegedly schemed to corrupt two state boards and solicited

contributions for the campaign of Governor Rod Blagojevich from companies seeking state

business. He was acquitted of one count of attempted extortion, four counts of corrupt solicitation

and three counts of fraud. (Yahoo Wires, June 4, 2008)

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 187

Obama released a statement announcing that he was “saddened,” adding in part that “this isn’t

the Tony Rezko I knew, but now he has been convicted by a jury ... that once again shines a

spotlight on the need for reform.” (cbs2chicago.com) This trope was now a very overworked topos

from Axelrod’s rhetorical grab bag, having previously figured in Obama’s boiler plate “This isn’t

the Jeremiah Wright I knew” evasive denial right after the ranting reverend’s geek act at the

National Press Club. As Pringle points out, ‘…Obama knew about the Operation Board Games

investigation during his year-long wheeling and dealing escapade with Rezko to arrange the

purchase of the mansion and lot, and any claim to the contrary by the “I did not know” candidate is

ludicrous.’ (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com) This was all bad enough, to be sure. But these

monstrous crimes themselves are nothing but the tip of the iceberg. To estimate the real dimensions

of the bipartisan Illinois Combine, we call on Evelyn Pringle, an expert in the ethnic labyrinths that

are now the city of broad shoulders and former hog butcher to the world.

TONY REZKO: FROM CAMELOT TO OBAMA’S LOT

Pringle’s thesis is simple: Obama is an organized crime figure, and the Democratic Party should

never have allowed him to get anywhere near its presidential nomination:

The most trusted leaders of the Democratic party, such as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, ought

to be ashamed of themselves for supporting Barack Obama. With use of the internet, a fifth

grader could connect the dots to show a picture of a guy who was picked up in college and

carried up the political ladder by a corrupt gang of influence peddlers. John McCain is just

drooling waiting for Obama to become the nominee so that he can come out with the trail of dirt

that the Democratic Party is too afraid to reveal this late in the game. If nominated, Obama will

not survive a month when faced with the Republican attack machine. If he becomes the

nominee, the web of corruption leading to Obama’s rise to power that this investigative

journalist was able to untangle in less than three weeks, will be front page news right up until

election day, handing the Republicans their only chance in hell of winning the White House.

(Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

The keystone in this vast edifice of corruption is the Rezko-Auchi axis, which, thanks to

Obama’s complicity, has allowed Rezko to become the owner of a huge piece of prime real estate in

the Loop, the central business district of the lakeside metropolis. Pringle writes:

The investigation called “Operation Board Games” will lead to Obama’s downfall and it will

begin with what he claims was a “boneheaded” mistake in entering into real estate deal with the

Syrian-born immigrant, Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko, less than a month after Rezko received a $3.5

million loan from the Iraqi-born billionaire, Nadhmi Auchi, who ended up with Riverside Park,

a $2.5 billion 62-acre development project in the Chicago Loop. [This immense prize of

Riverside Park is a central feature of the entire scandal, since] … following the names linked to

Riverside Park is the key to understanding Operation Board Games.’ (Evelyn Pringle,

opednews.com)

Today, Obama is naturally running away from Tony Rezko as fast as his legs will carry him, but

the evasion is useless. At various times in his career, Obama has been a most assiduous frequenter

of the Levantine gangster.

‘For a year, [Obama] also minimized his relationship with Rezko by telling the media that he

only had dinner or lunch with Rezko one or twice a year. But when confronted by Sun-Times

reporters during the March 14 interview, with the allegation that an FBI mole saw him coming

188 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

and going to Rezko’s office often and that three sources said he talked to Rezko on the phone

daily, Obama changed his tune.’ (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

‘In the media, Obama always made it sound like he rarely saw Rezko, saying they met for

breakfast or lunch once or twice a year. However, the FBI mole John Thomas helped

investigators “build a record of repeat visits to the old offices of Rezko and former business

partner Daniel Mahru’s Rezmar Corp., at 853 N. Elston, by Blagojevich and Obama during

2004 and 2005,” according to the February 10, 2008 Sun-Times.’ (Evelyn Pringle, “Curtain for

Barack Obama Part II,” opednews.com)

At the height of the Jeremiah Wright scandal in mid-March 2008, Obama finally gave in to the

demands of the Chicago press corps and agreed to answer some questions about his relations with

Rezko over the years. Obama was obviously seeking to use one scandal to eclipse another, but

Pringle has gone through the relevant articles and found much material which is damaging to the

Illinois Messiah. One aspect of this was the infiltrated FBI spy had testified that Obama was

constantly in the company of Rezko:

During his March 14, 2008 interview, the Sun Times told Obama, Thomas is an FBI mole and

he “recently told us that he saw you coming and going from Rezko’s office a lot.” “And three

other sources told us that you and Rezko spoke on the phone daily.” “Is that true?” the reporter

asked. “No,” Obama said, “That’s not accurate.” “I think what is true,” he said, “is that, it

depends on the period of time.” “I’ve known him for 17 years,” Obama stated. “There were

stretches of time where I would see him once or twice a year.” He told the Sun Times, “when he

was involved in finance committee for the U.S. Senate race, or the state senate races, or the U.S.

Congressional race, then he was an active member.” “During the U.S. Senate race, there’d be

stretches of like a couple of weeks - for example prior to him organizing the fundraiser that he

did for us - where I would probably be talking to him once a day to make sure that was going

well,” he said. “But the typical relationship was one that was fond,” he added. “We would see

each other.” Now the story is that he may have talked to Rezko daily at times during campaigns

but sometimes he went for a whole month without talking to him. “I have to say we’re talking

over the course of 10 years,” Obama said, “there might have been spurts where I talked to him

daily.” (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

Further invasion is useless; Obama was as close to Rezko as the thumb is to the forefinger. One

way to document this is by following the money. Obama himself has confessed to accepting

something in the neighborhood of a quarter million dollars from his convicted felon backer.

‘Tony Rezko was Obama’s political Godfather. Obama received his first contributions of

$2,000, to launch his political career as a state senator on July 31, 1995, from Rezko. Obama

started out saying that Rezko only raised $50,000 or $60,000 for his political career but after a

year of lying his way through the primaries, the latest total he gave to the Sun-Times and

Tribune during interviews on March 14, 2008, adds up to $250,000.’ (Evelyn Pringle,

opednews.com)

OBAMA: REZKO “NEVER ASKED ME FOR ANYTHING” FOR THE $250K!

Rezko and Obama go back a long way together, back to the early 90s when Obama was

completing law school at Harvard. ‘Obama met Rezko soon after graduating from Harvard Law

School. Rezko was well connected in Chicago’s African-American community, in part because he

had worked with Jabir Herbert Muhammad, the son of Nation of Islam founder Elijah Muhammad,

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 189

when he was managing the career of boxer Muhammad Ali, according to a May 2005 profile in the

Chicago Tribune. Rezko moved into real estate and political fundraising, often a combustible

combination in Chicago. Rezko offered Obama a job with his real estate company soon after they

met, around 1991, but Obama declined. When Obama decided to run for the state Senate in 1995,

Rezko was his “first substantial contributor,” according to the Tribune. That money relationship

continued, with Rezko raising as much as $250,000 over the course of Obama’s five Illinois races,

reported the Chicago Sun-Times. The friendship may have reflected the fact that both men were

outsiders, trying to establish themselves in the rough-and-tumble world of Chicago. Obama told the

Sun-Times last month: “My assessment of Tony Rezko was that he was an immigrant who had sort

of pulled himself up by his bootstraps. ... I think he saw me as somebody who had talent, but he was

probably also intrigued by my international background.” Part of what Obama says he liked about

Rezko was his graciousness: “He never asked me for anything.” The relationship became

controversial because of the now-famous home-purchase deal: When Obama and his wife bought a

$1.65 million house in Chicago in June 2005, Rezko’s wife simultaneously bought the adjoining lot

and later sold part of it back to the Obamas so that they could have a bigger yard. Obama conceded

in an interview with the Chicago Tribune last month that in the real estate deal, “I made a mistake in

not seeing the potential conflicts of interest or appearances of impropriety.” He said of Rezko’s

motivation in buying the adjoining lot, “He perhaps thought that this would strengthen our

relationship. He could have even thought he was doing me a favor.” What’s troubling about this

story is that at the time Obama bought the house in June 2005, allegations had already surfaced

about Rezko’s alleged influence-peddling. A Feb. 13, 2005, story in the Chicago Tribune criticized

Rezko’s receipt of lucrative state contracts to operate restaurants on Illinois toll roads; an April 8,

2005, story said he was “under fire from Chicago’s city hall” because his restaurant chain had taken

two spots at O’Hare airport designated for minority firms; a May 17 article reported that Rezko had

been subpoenaed in a corruption probe. (David Ignatius, “Obama and the Chicago Insider,”

Washington Post, April 20, 2008)

Obama’s absurd claim that Rezko “never asked me for anything” shows his real contempt for the

intelligence of voters, and in any serious presidential debate he would have been questioned

mercilessly on this point. But Ignatius, a drooling acolyte of the Perfect Master, is more than

willing to accept this nonsense at face value.

OBAMA’S DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL POLICY FOR GRAFT

Obama returns to this particular lie (the one about Rezko never having asked him for any favors

whatsoever) again and again, like a dog to its vomit:

…Obama has continuously claimed that Rezko never asked him for favors. On November 5,

2006, the Sun-Times published his answers to questions that were submitted to him after the

news of the real estate deal with Rezko surfaced, and Obama stated: “I have never been asked to

do anything to advance his business interests.” A day later, on November 6, 2006, he told

reporters in Waukegan Illinois, “He had never asked me for anything. I’d never done anything

for him.” In December 2006, he told the Washington Post: “I’ve known him for 15 years.” “He

had never asked me to do anything.” (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

Even the chickens are laughing at Obama’s mendacity.

But the record indicates that Obama did a large number of very dirty favors redolent of graft and

corruption for his sugar daddy Rezko.

190 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

On June 13, 2007, the Sun-Times reported that as a state senator, “Obama wrote letters to city

and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko’s successful bid to get more than

$14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.” In the Sun Times, Novak

reported that the deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and [ex Obama

employer and alleged public housing abuser Allison] Davis, while Obama was still working at

the Davis law firm, for a bid on a project that was “four blocks outside Obama’s state Senate

district.” Although the law firm represented several companies owned by Davis and Rezko

when Obama wrote the letters, the firm did not represent New Kenwood in the deal. According

to the Sun-Times, Davis and Rezko instead hired a firm owned by Mayor Daley’s brother

Michael, “to help them get $3.1 million from bonds issued by the city of Chicago.” (Pringle, oped

news)

MICHELLE OBAMA’S FASHION SHOW OF GRAFT

Michelle Obama joined her husband in eagerly cavorting in the cesspool of the bipartisan Illinois

Combine. Michelle was the guest of honor at a veritable fashion show of graft; among those present

was Patti Blagojevich the consort of the overlord of the entire bipartisan Illinois Combine.

‘In the November 2007, Chicago Magazine, James Merriner described a “fashion show” that

took place in the first week in November 2006, to benefit St Jude Children’s Research Hospital,

which he said, “attracted little if any media coverage, which may have been exactly as its organizers

and sponsors had hoped.” “The invitation to the affair,” he wrote, “offered a veritable guidebook to

political influence in Illinois, much of it centered on one St. Jude benefactor, Antoin ‘Tony’

Rezko.” “Just three weeks earlier,” Merriner pointed out, “Rezko had been indicted on charges of

extorting kickbacks from businesses seeking contracts from the Blagojevich administration.” The

“fashion show” was chaired by Rita Rezko, co-chaired by the Governor’s wife, Patti Blagojevich,

and Michelle Obama was a special guest that day, according to Merriner. Two weeks after the

“fashion show,” on November 17, 2006, the Sun-Times reported that Blagojevich’s wife Patti got

nearly $50,000 from a real estate deal in late 2002 involving Rezko. (Evelyn Pringle,

opednews.com)

VALERIE JARRETT, FRIEND OF BARKY

Michelle Obama had in fact been an integral part of the Illinois Combine even before Barky. It

was Michelle who introduced Obama into the secrets of the machine:

‘Obama’s ties to the corrupt Daley machine began when he was dating his wife Michelle and

she brought him into the fold. Valerie Jarrett, the deputy chief of staff to Mayor Daley, hired

Michelle as her assistant in 1991…. Obama’s introduction into the “Combine” came when his

wife Michelle was hired by Jarrett in the early 1990s, and served as Jarrett’s assistant in Daley’s

office and followed her to the Department of Planning and Development.’ (Evelyn Pringle,

opednews.com)

During the 2008 primaries, Valerie Jarrett was listed by Newsweek magazine as part of Obama’s

standard traveling entourage. Valerie Jarrett played a key role in introducing both Obama and

Michelle into the higher levels of the Combine:

‘Daley made Jarrett the chairman of the Chicago Department of Planning and Development and

Michelle worked as her assistant in that Department during 1992-93. From there Michelle

moved up the political tiers to the University of Chicago and ultimately got an overnight pay

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 191

raise from about $121,000 to close to $317,000, after Obama became a US Senator, as a vice

president at the University of Chicago.’ (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

At the University of Chicago, the careers of Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett moved in

tandem, like Plutarch’s parallel lives:

On June 13, 2006, Michelle’s employer, the University of Chicago, announced that, “Valerie

Jarrett has been appointed as the new Chair of the University of Chicago Medical Center Board

and also Chair of a newly created Executive Committee of that board. She has also been named

Vice-Chair of the University’s Board of Trustees.” Jarrett served on Obama’s US Senate

campaign finance committee and serves on Obama’s presidential campaign finance committee

along with Alex Giannoulias and Mayor Daley’s brother Bill.’ (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

Valerie Jarrett has also been important for the fundraising of the Obama campaign, the source of

Obama’s much-vaunted claims of superiority over all his rivals:

‘When it came time for Obama’s US Senate campaign, Valerie Jarrett became the campaign

finance chairman and worked hand and hand with fellow finance committee members, Rita and

Tony Rezko, and his [Obama’s] former boss at the law firm, Allison Davis, in fundraising

endeavors. The committee raised more than $14 million, according to Federal Election

Commission records, Tim Novak reported in the Sun-Times on April 23, 2007. Jarrett is now

the CEO of Habitat Co, a real estate development and management firm which manages the

housing program for the Chicago Housing Authority, the entity mandated to administer public

housing, and she serves as an unpaid advisor to Obama’s Presidential campaign.’ (Evelyn

Pringle, opednews.com)

DAVID AXELROD: A FLACK FOR THE COMBINE

The mastermind of Obama’s campaign, David Axelrod, whom we have already encountered as a

graduate of the infamous University of Chicago 1313 school of mind bending, can only be properly

understood in his role as a flack and public-relations man for the corrupt bipartisan Illinois

Combine.

On April 1, 2007, Dick Simpson, a former Chicago alderman who is now chairman of the

political science department at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told Ben Wallace-Wells in

the New York Times: “David Axelrod’s mostly been visible in Chicago in the last decade as

Daley’s public relations strategist and the guy who goes on television to defend Daley from

charges of corruption.” (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

The need for such services has been increasingly evident:

‘On January 6, 2006, the New York Times ran the headline, “Corruption Scandal Loosening

Mayor Daley’s Grip on Chicago,” and reported that a “wide-ranging federal investigation into

what prosecutors describe as “pervasive fraud” in hiring and contracts at City Hall has led to 30

indictments, including two senior administrators close to the mayor, and a dozen cabinet-level

resignations.” (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

Axelrod’s network in the Daley machine and the Chicago Tribune has been a priceless asset for

the Redeemer. Various websites have advanced the allegation that Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton’s

campaign manager in 2007-2008, had come under the influence of Axelrod as a result of Solis

Doyle’s Chicago connections to The Combine. In a posting on Taylor Marsh’s site, we find that

‘Daniel “Danny” Solis is a Chicago politician who serves as the alderman for the 25th ward which

192 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

includes the Lower West Side. He was appointed by Mayor Richard M. Daley in 1996. He is the

brother of Patti Solis Doyle, Senator Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager. Solis was a

member of Clinton’s Illinois Steering Committee. Throughout his career as alderman, Solis has

been an ally of Mayor Daley and in 2001 was appointed President Pro Tempore of the City Council,

allowing him to oversee council proceedings in the mayor’s absence.’75 Some concluded from this

that Patti Solis Doyle had turned into a submarine in the Clinton camp. This would explain why

Clinton had little or no organization in the February 2008 post-Super Tuesday caucus and primary

states, a failing which allowed Barky to build up his lead in delegates thanks to caucuses in

Republican states where the Democratic Party was a restricted club dominated by rich elitists and

global warming neo-Luddite fanatics.76 The charges were plausible, but there was also the matter of

Mark Penn as another nefarious influence who shared responsibility for defeat.

AN OBAMA BODY COUNT?

During the Clinton era, right-wingers delighted in circulating a list of deceased persons which

they referred to with much stretching of the imagination as a Clinton body count. It may now be

time to revive this venerable institution for Obama and the bipartisan Illinois combine: John

Stroger was the Cook County Board President and thus the top-ranking African-American elected

official in the county in which Chicago is located. On January 31, 2006, Obama pointedly declined

to endorse Stroger for re-election. The Chicago Democratic machine turned against Stroger, forcing

him off the ticket and out of office. Stroger was elderly and not in good health, but he succumbed at

a time that was convenient for the Daley machine:

John Stroger will not be answering any questions about corruption, or any other matter, because

he died on January 18, 2008. His former chief of staff and godson, Orlando Jones, will not be

talking either because he was found dead of self-inflicted gun wounds in September 2007, “just

as a corruption inquiry targeting him was heating up,” according to a September 7, 2007 report

by CBS News channel 2 Chicago.’ (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

Was Jones suicided?

‘“Jones left his position in county government to create a lobbying firm in association with

Tony Rezko, who has been indicted on fraud charges,” CBS reported. Cook County

Commissioner Tony Peraica [a Republican who had tried to get Stroger’s post] told CBS that

Orlando Jones’ death raised many questions about the Cook County president’s office. “Some

of these matters Jones was involved in that are currently being investigated by the FBI and the

U.S. Attorney’s Office are reaching to the highest level of county government,” Peraica said.

(Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

Other names that might figure on an Obama body count include Donald Young, the gay

choirmaster of Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, Larry Bland, and Nate Spencer,

the latter also black gay men from the south side of Chicago who have died recently under

mysterious circumstances. Nate Spencer was also a member of Wright’s Trinity United church.

Despite all the media attention for this highly politicized church, two murders in the cathedral have

not been reported by the controlled corporate outlets.

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 193

LOOTING OF PENSION FUNDS WAS OBAMA’S SPECIALTY

Important aspects of Combine operations in which Obama was involved dealt with the organized

looting of investment funds earmarked for the retirement income of state employees. Obama’s

contribution was to streamline the process by which these pension funds could be bilked.

Obama’s using the lure of the pension funds to raise campaign money goes way back. In 1999,

he “was instrumental in the formation of a coalition of black investment firm owners and

legislators in Illinois to create an initiative that would award black-owned firms with the

management of some of the state’s retirement funds,” according to a 2004 article on Black

Enterprise.com. […] However, the Times pointed out that Obama’s political career had

benefited many times over from his ties to the group. “Several of the businessmen or their

wives would help clear the debts from his Congressional race,” the Times wrote, “and six of the

group’s members are now among the top fund-raisers for his presidential campaign, according

to campaign finance records.” (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

Obama’s services in making it easier for black oligarchs to siphon off money from these

retirement accounts led in turn to increased campaign contributions for the Perfect Master:

During this period, the Times says, campaign finance records show executives from Ariel

Capital, Loop Capital, Holland Capital and Capri Capital, “sharply increased their donations” to

Obama’s State Senate campaign fund. “And once he began his campaign for the United States

Senate,” the Times wrote, “they quickly became a fund-raising core that has carried over into

the presidential race.” (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

These machinations also help to explain one of the legendary Damascus road conversions of the

2008 primary season, the decision of former Clinton ally and DNC Chairman David Wilhelm to

join the ranks of the renegades endorsing Obama. Wilhelm had been implicated for some years in

shady activities in which Obama had also been a protagonist:

Obama was chairman of the Senate Health & Human Services Committee in January

2003. A few articles in the media have mentioned that Obama sat on a committee that

reviewed matters related to the Planning Board in conjunction with the Governor’s staff but

none have discussed his integral part in getting the bill passed A June 2003 email exchange

produced in the trial shows Obama was one of eight officials who received the names of the

nominees for the new Board ahead of time, from the office of David Wilhelm, who headed

Blagojevich’s 2002 campaign for governor. The corrupt new appointees were all

contributors to the presidential hopeful, Blagojevich, and the US Senate hopeful Obama. On

February 14, 2008, Wilhelm endorsed Obama in a call with reporters, citing the senator’s

“masterful” campaign organization and strategy as well as his “undeniable momentum.”

“He has outworked, out-organized and out-raised his opponents every step of the way,”

Wilhelm said. “The Obama campaign, win or lose, will serve as a model for future

generations to come.” Wilhelm’s firm has received a subpoena for records related to

pension fund investments.’ (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

Pringle thinks that the Combine wanted to put Blagojevich into the White House, but the

presidency is beyond the reach of gangsters at this level, unless the Trilaterals and related financier

forces approve.

194 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

The pecuniary rewards for Obama and his fellow racketeers were most gratifying, but the impact

on Chicago and Illinois was devastating. The Combine was a cancer so big that it was beginning to

drain the life blood of its host, causing a gradual strangulation of the real economy:

Illinois citizens are sick of paying the cost of corruption. A September 26, 2007 news release by

Steve Stanek of the Heartland Institute carried the headline: “Proposed Tax Hike Would Give

Chicago Nation’s Highest Sales Tax Burden” “Chicagoans would face an 11 percent sales tax

rate, highest in the nation, if Cook County officials go through with a plan to more than triple

the county’s portion of the area’s sales tax,” Stanek wrote. And let there be no doubt, Obama is

a member of this corrupt gang. On January 22, 2007 ABC News in Chicago announced that

Senator Obama “is supporting Mayor Daley’s re-election bid despite a series of City Hall

corruption scandals.” (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

NADHMI AUCHI, PARTNER OF REZKO – AND BARKY?

Obama’s second Levantine godfather is the British billionaire Auchi, whose front company,

General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH), is now the owner of some prime Chicago real estate,

thanks to his close relations with the Illinois Combine. This is

Nadhmi Auchi, who ended up with Riverside Park, a 62-acre lot in the Chicago Loop estimated

to now be worth $2.5 billion. On September 29, 2005, Crain’s Chicago Business news reported

that General Mediterranean Holding, “a Luxembourg-based conglomerate headed by Nadhmi

Auchi, is buying Riverside Park, a yet-to-be-built development on a prime 62-acre parcel on

Roosevelt Road,” … General Mediterranean is owned by Nadhmi Auchi, who public source

documents describe as a British-based Iraqi billionaire who was convicted several years ago in

France on fraud charges. Auchi was sentenced to 15 months in prison and fined $2 million

euros, but the sentence was suspended as long as Auchi committed no new crimes…. Auchi’s

conviction was a part of the gigantic investigation into the corruption of the Elf oil company,

“the biggest fraud inquiry in Europe since the Second World War. Elf became a private bank

for its executives who spent £200 million on political favours, mistresses, jewelry, fine art,

villas and apartments,” according to the November 16, 2003 Guardian. (Evelyn Pringle,

opednews.com)

Auchi and Alsammarae both have their pied-à-terre in Chicago; Alsammarae, in fact, has three:

“The three homes belonging to former Iraqi Electricity Minister Aiham Alsammarae — a dual

U.S.-Iraqi citizen who broke out of a Baghdad jail in 2006 — are part of a long list made public

... following a Sun-Times request.” “Alsammarae is the weakest link in the chain of people who

stole money from the CPA and the Iraqi people since 2003. The evidence against him is strong

and convincing. His conviction is a problem for the people in his gang. The Baathists.” (Evelyn

Pringle, opednews.com)

There is little doubt that a serious probe of Chicago real estate and public housing graft would

reach all the way up to Mayor Richard Daley and beyond: Pringle has demanded that ‘an

“Operation Board Games” investigation should be conducted on the slumlord business in Illinois

over the past 15 years. Daley became Mayor in 1989 and Rezmar got its first city loan of $629,000

the same year, even though Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience.’ (Evelyn Pringle,

opednews.com)

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 195

According to Rawstory, “Auchi, a native of Iraq who lives in Great Britain, has a colorful past

of his own. The businessman set up a variety of deals with Saddam Hussein’s regime prior to the

1991 Gulf War, and was one of the largest private shareholders in BNP Paribas, the bank that

trafficked most of the funds involved in the UN Oil-For-Food scandal. He also admitted taking

kickbacks from the French petroleum company TotalFinaElf in the 1990s (Auchi later sued Elf for

entangling him in their criminal activities, according to Forbes).”

By late summer 2008, right-wing papers from the mainstream media were finally beginning to

realize the dimensions of the Auchi issue. Neocon John Fund wrote in the Wall Street Journal

online edition: ‘Rezko’s trial raised a host of questions. Was Mr. Obama able to save $300,000 on

the asking price of his house because Rezko’s wife paid full price for the adjoining lot? How did

Mrs. Rezko make a $125,000 down payment and obtain a $500,000 mortgage when financial

records shown at the Rezko trial indicate she had a salary of only $37,000 and assets of $35,000?

Records show her husband also had few assets at the time. Last April, the London Times revealed

that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire living in London, had loaned Mr. Rezko $3.5 million

three weeks before the day the sale of the house and lot closed in June 2005. Mr. Auchi’s office

notes he was a business partner of Rezko but says he had “no involvement in or knowledge of” the

property sale. But in April 2004 he did attend a dinner party in his honor at Rezko’s Chicago home.

Mr. Obama also attended, and according to one guest, toasted Mr. Auchi. Later that year, Mr. Auchi

came under criminal investigation as part of a U.S. probe of the corrupt issuance of cell-phone

licenses in Iraq. In May 2004, the Pentagon’s inspector general’s office cited “significant and

credible evidence” of involvement by Mr. Auchi’s companies in the Oil for Food scandal, and in

illicit smuggling of weapons to Saddam Hussein’s regime. Because of the criminal probe, Mr.

Auchi’s travel visa to the U.S. was revoked in August 2004, even as Mr. Auchi denied all the

allegations. According to prosecutors, in November 2005 Rezko was able to get two government

officials from Illinois to appeal to the State Department to get the visa restored. Asked if anyone in

his office was involved in such an appeal, Mr. Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times last March, “not

that I know of.” FOIA requests to the State Department for any documents haven’t been responded

to for months.’77

REZKO JAILED BEFORE SUPER TUESDAY OVER PAYMENT TO REZKO

Auchi suddenly became big news just before Super Tuesday, when court proceedings

connected to the Rezko trial revealed that Auchi had transmitted a hefty sum of cash to

Rezko to help him to make bail and get sprung out of jail. When the judge in the Rezko trial

learned of Auchi’s conveyance of this cash, Rezko was ordered back to jail at a very

sensitive moment in the primary season – but most of the impact was blunted because of

the media smokescreen for Barky. Important background information was provided by the

London Times, the British newspaper of record: ‘An undeclared $3.5 million (£1.8 million)

payment from a Iraqi-British businessman has landed Barack Obama’s former fundraiser

behind bars. The payment, disclosed in court papers, is the first time that Mr Obama’s longserving

bagman Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a Syrian immigrant to the United States, has been

linked to Nadhmi Auchi, the Iraqi-born billionaire who is one of Britain’s richest men.

Court papers describe Mr Rezko as a close friend of Mr Auchi, although Mr Auchi disputes

this. The two are involved in a large Chicago land development together. But it is unclear

how long the two men have known each other or whether they were linked before the 2003

Iraq war. Neither side would discuss their relationship. The Times has, however, discovered

196 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

state documents in Illinois recording that Fintrade Services, a Panamanian company, lent

money to Mr Obama’s fundraiser in May 2005. Fintrade’s directors include Ibtisam Auchi,

the name of Mr Auchi’s wife. Mr Auchi’s spokespeople declined to respond to a question

about whether he was linked to this business. Mr Rezko, to be tried for corruption this

month, had his bail revoked on Monday after he disobeyed a court’s instructions to keep it

informed of changes to his finances. Prosecutors feared that he could try to flee abroad….

According to prosecution documents Mr Rezko tried to persuade unnamed Illinois officials

to help Mr Auchi to get a US visa after he was convicted of fraud in France. Mr Auchi

denies asking Mr Rezko to approach any officials and Mr Obama’s aides deny that he was

approached. There is no suggestion that any lobbying was related to the loan. Mr Rezko has

been indicted for pressuring companies seeking state business for kickbacks and campaign

contributions, although none for Mr Obama. He was granted bail in October 2006. He told

a judge that he had no access to overseas money. But in April 2007 Mr Auchi’s business,

General Mediterranean Holding (GMH), wired $3.5 million to Mr Rezko from a bank

account in Beirut via a law firm. Mr Auchi has attracted attention at Westminster because

of his closeness to politicians and the Establishment. He says that his brother was executed

by Saddam Hussein’s regime. His business partners in Britain have included Lord Steel of

Aikwood, the former Liberal leader, and Keith Vaz, the Labour MP and Home Affairs

Committee chairman. On the 20th anniversary of his business in 1999, Mr Auchi received a

greeting card signed by 130 politicians, including Tony Blair, William Hague and Charles

Kennedy, who were then leaders of their respective parties. Norman Lamb, the Liberal

Democrat MP, went on to table parliamentary questions asking why the Blair Government

appeared slow to respond to a French extradition request. Mr Lamb said last night: “It’s a

matter of public interest to understand why the payments were made. This deserves

thorough investigation.” Mr Auchi founded GMH in 1979, a year before he left Iraq. He

says that he did business with his native country when it was considered a friend of the

West but ceased to trade with Saddam’s regime once sanctions were imposed after the

invasion of Kuwait. US prosecution documents recall Mr Auchi’s suspended jail sentence

and €2 million fine for corruption in France five years ago. Defence lawyers said that Mr

Auchi lent the $3.5 million for legal and family expenses.’ (James Bone, “Obama bagman

is sent to jail after failing to declare $3.5m payment by British tycoon,” London Times,

February 1, 2008)

AUCHI IMPLICATED IN OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL, CELL PHONE SCAM

In addition to his other escapades, Auchi has according to published reports also been implicated

by US government investigators in a bribery scheme to fix cell phone contracts let by the USimposed

Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq, as well as of having played a key role in the Oil

for Food scandal. The Oil for Food scandal occurred when international profiteers embezzled

money from a UN program designed to deliver food and medicine to the people of Iraq during the

period of the genocidal US-imposed sanctions, which resulted n the needless deaths of hundreds of

thousands of Iraqis. A crucial component of this story was provided by neocon Bill Gertz, who

pointed out: ‘Auchi gave at least $10.5 million to Obama fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko,

including a payment of $3.5 million that coincided with Mr. Obama's purchase in 2005 of a $1.65

million Chicago house, the London Times reported Tuesday. The newspaper said the timing of the

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 197

payment and the house purchase, along with the purchase of land next door by Mr. Rezko's wife

Rita from the same seller, raise questions about whether Auchi helped buy the house. Bill Burton, a

spokesman for Mr. Obama, would not answer when asked if Auchi helped buy the senator's house.

He said the senator did not recall ever meeting Auchi, who was convicted of corruption charges in

France in 2003. A 2004 Pentagon report obtained by The Washington Times identified Auchi as a

global arms dealer and Iraqi billionaire… The report to the Pentagon inspector general stated that

"significant and credible evidence was developed that a conspiracy was organized by Nadhmi

Auchi to offer bribes to 'fix' the awarding of cellular licensing contracts covering three geographic

areas of Iraq” under the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority.”

“Additionally, significant and credible evidence has been developed that Nadhmi Auchi has

engaged in unlawful activities working closely with Iraqi intelligence operatives to:

“Bribe foreign governments and individuals prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom to turn opinion

against the American-led mission to remove Saddam Hussein.

“Arrange for significant theft from the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program to smuggle weapons and

dual-use technology into Iraq ....

“Organize an elaborate scheme to take over and control the post-war cellular phone system in

Iraq.”

The report suggests Auchi has ties to British intelligence through a 2002 association with a

former British intelligence chief, and that British telecommunications companies may have used

Auchi to gain access to cellular phone markets in post-invasion Iraq. Auchi has denied accusations

over the cell phone contract.’78

In a clear attempt to undermine free speech and the protections guaranteed to Americans by the

First Amendment, Alasdair Pepper of the British law firm Carter-Ruck has been busy attempting to

intimidate American web sites into taking down material deemed offensive by Auchi. Evelyn

Pringle is one writer who has received such threatening communications. This amounts to an

attempt to take down the First Amendment and impose the alien, British concept of libel, which

tends to protect powerful or wealthy public figures from criticism, thus chilling political debate. The

Obama campaign has been a direct beneficiary of the resulting suppression of news about Auchi.

Pro-Obama news organs like the New York Times have tacitly cooperated with these activities,

willingly weakening free speech to get their candidate elected79.

THE OBAMA-ALSAMMARAE MUTUAL AID SOCIETY

Alsammarae, a convicted felon in Iraq and an international fugitive, has contributed to Obama’s

presidential campaign, and also helped pay the bail necessary to spring Rezko from the cooler.

Obama reciprocated by doing favors for Alsammarae:

Three days after the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Aiham Alsammarae, the former

electricity minister convicted of corruption in Iraq, put up $2.7 million in property to help raise

$8.5 million to free Tony Rezko from jail in Chicago, the Times reported that Alsammarae had

contributed six times to Obama’s presidential campaign. The April 29, 2008 report also noted

that before he escaped from jail in Baghdad in December 2006, and returned to Chicago,

Obama’s US Senate office had sought information about Alsammarae from the State

Department on October 16, 2006 on behalf of Alsammarae’s family while he was being held in

jail in Iraq. As usual, when busted on the contributions given in January, February and March

[2008], the Obama camp said it would donate Alsammarae’s money to charity and his

198 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

spokesman, Ben LaBolt, put out the standard line that Obama does not ever “recall” meeting

Alsammarae. The Associated Press ran a follow-up story on April 14, 2008, calling Auchi a

“mysterious billionaire with his hands on a major chunk of Chicago real estate,” and described

his arrival in Illinois in April 2004, as a major event in which Lt. Governor Quinn “headed a

welcoming delegation that greeted Auchi when his private plane touched down at Chicago’s

Midway Airport.” (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

REZKO’S 2004 RECEPTION FOR AUCHI:

DID OBAMA AND MICHELLE ATTEND?

Auchi was plainly treated like a head of state when he arrived at O’Hare in 2004 to meet with his

cohorts. How could a convicted felon enter the US so easily? Did Senator Obama help Auchi clear

some hurdles with the federal authorities? Pringle notes that ‘all members of the “Combine” have

tried to distance themselves from Auchi’s visit because, as previously explained, he is not allowed

in the US. However, the question that remains is, how did he enter this country in April 2004, after

his 2003 conviction in France. According to the February 28, 2008 Sun-Times: “Auchi’s Londonbased

lawyer, Alasdair Pepper, wouldn’t answer that.” “State Department and Homeland Security

officials said they couldn’t comment,” according to the Times. During a March 14, 2008 interview,

the Times asked Obama: “Did you ever help Auchi enter the country?” He said, “No.” But when

asked the follow-up question of whether “his office” helped Auchi enter the country, he replied,

“Not that I know of.” On January 28, 2008, Raw Story’s Michael Roston reported that after rumors

began spreading that Auchi may have met with Obama, “In what appears to be a clumsy ‘cleanup’

operation, evidence of Auchi’s visit to Illinois has now been deleted from two websites linked to his

company, General Mediterranean Holding.” (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

Then there is the fascinating issue of a sumptuous reception, fit for a king, which was offered in

the honor of visiting dignitary Auchi by his close business associate, Tony Rezko. At the time of

this reception, invitations were doubtless very much in demand. But now, in a surprising reversal,

the local bigwigs who attended are frequently attempting to argue that they were not there at all:

because Auchi has now become a hot potato, especially for Obama, there is

… a disagreement over whether Obama did or didn’t attend a party at Rezko’s house for an

Iraqi-born billionaire named Nadhmi Auchi. A prosecution witness testified that Obama and his

wife were guests at the April 3, 2004, gathering in the Chicago suburb of Wilmette. The Obama

campaign responded that neither of the Obamas recalled attending such an event. Auchi

similarly has “no recollection of meeting Senator Obama at any party in 2004 or at any other

time,” according to his lawyer, Alasdair Pepper.’(David Ignatius, “Obama and the Chicago

Insider,” Washington Post, April 20, 2008)

There is a very good chance that we have just caught the distinguished senator and his charming

consort lying, once again. This scandal makes the Billygate scandal of the Carter administration

look like an innocent flirtation. The official position of the Obama campaign is that Obama has

never met Auchi, meaning that the sworn testimony of Stuart Levine in the Rezko trial on this issue

was perjury.

Obama may have been smart enough to make sure that he did not get photographed together

with Auchi, but his Governor Blagojevich apparently did not exhibit the same level of elementary

prudence. There are in fact pictures of Auchi together with Blagojevich:

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 199

ABC News first posted a link to photos showing Auchi meeting with Blagojevich on the site,

“Middle East Online.” The description under a picture of Auchi and Blagojevich, still

accessible on the internet a month ago, stated: “Governor of the State of Illinois, Mr Rod

Blagojevich hosted an official reception in honour of Mr Auchi.” Another picture, taken in the

Chicago office of the President of the Illinois State Senate bears the title: “Illinois State Senate

President Mr Emile Jones Jr. meets Mr Auchi.” (Pringle, op-ednews.com)

Jones is of course another of Obama’s friends and patrons, and a key wheel horse of the Illinois

Combine.

But there are other accounts, very embarrassing for Obama as a proponent of clean government,

that place him among those present at the 2004 Rezko-Auchi bash, with Obama leading the wellheeled

guests in drinking to Auchi’s health and long life:

…on April 16, 2008, Sun-Times columnist, Michael Sneed, reported that Obama had even made

toasts at Rezko’s party, and wrote: “Dem presidential contender Barack Obama’s handlers may

be telling the press Obama has NO “recollection” of a 2004 party at influence peddler Tony

Rezko’s Wilmette house, but a top Sneed source claims Obama not only gave Rezko’s guest of

honor, Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, a big welcome . . . but he made a few toasts!”80 In an

April 26, 2008, interview with the Chicago Tribune reporter, John McCormick, Obama did not

deny that he and Michelle were at the party but said he did not recall being there, stating: “I

have to say that I just don’t recall it. I mean this has been, I guess, four years ago. My

understanding, through his lawyer, Mr. Auchi doesn’t recall meeting me and you know, I can’t

speak for other people’s recollections.” (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

This is another example of Obama’s technique of rhetorical evasion under the guise of disarming

frankness.

On February 25, 2005, a report by Charles Smith for NewsMax said, “Newly released

documents from the Bush administration show that a former member of Saddam Hussein’s inner

circle has resurfaced inside the new Iraqi government, bringing charges of corruption, bribery and

bid-rigging.” “As a result,” he wrote, “millions of U.S. aid dollars and billions in Iraqi government

funds have disappeared in an ongoing scandal that is poised to engulf Baghdad and Washington.” :

US SENATOR PETER FITZGERALD: “THE BIPARTISAN ILLINOIS COMBINE”

Perhaps the most authoritative confirmation of the existence of the Illinois bipartisan Combine

from former US Senator Peter Fitzgerald of the GOP, an elected official who for some reason did

not completely fit in with the prevailing general agreement to loot the citizens. Senator Fitzgerald

categorically affirmed the existence of such an ongoing criminal conspiracy, in which Obama is

unavoidably implicated:

Journalist John Kass asked US Senator, Peter Fitzgerald, “what do you call that connection that

Stuart Levine describes from the witness stand [in the Rezko trial], you know that arrangement

across party lines, with politically powerful men leveraging government to make money —

what do you call it?” “The Illinois Combine,” he said. “The bipartisan Illinois political

combine.” “And all these guys being mentioned, they’re part of it,” he told Kass. “In the final

analysis,” the Senator said, “The Combine’s allegiance is not to a party, but to their

pocketbooks.” “They’re about making money off the taxpayers,” he added. According to Kass,

“the Rezko trial is part of the U.S. Justice Department’s attack on The Combine.” (Evelyn

Pringle, opednews.com)

200 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

AIHAM ALSAMMARAE OF MESOPOTAMIA

Alsammarae’s ability as a con man carried him all the way to a meeting with George Bush in the

White House.

Alsammarae moved to Chicago in the 1970s and met Rezko while attending engineering school.

Reports indicating the Combine’s corruption extended to the electricity minister in Iraq began

in mid-summer 2005. On July 29, 2005, Sandra Jones reported in Crain’s Chicago Business:

“Rezmar ... controlled by Tony Rezko, a controversial confidant of Gov. Rod Blagojevich,

entered into a joint venture with a British firm in a $150-million deal to build a power plant in

Iraq.” (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

Paul Bremer, the leader of the notoriously corrupt Coalition Provisional Authority, appointed

him minister of electricity in August 2003. Alsammarae was photographed at a White House

ceremony in the Oval Office on September 22, 2003, at which Bush called him a “good soul,” who

“inherited a system of a corrupt tyrant.” (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com) Bush met Alsammarae,

but Obama cannot be sure about his own track record:

During a March 14, 2008 interview with the Sun-Times, Obama was asked: “Did you ever meet

Nadhmi Auchi or Dr. Aiham Alsammarae?” “I have to say I do not recall meeting them. It’s

been reported that a dinner Tony hosted at the Four Seasons, I don’t have the exact date, so I

don’t know whether it was the before November ‘04 when I hadn’t been elected but had already

won the primary or whether it was after the election, in which I was . . . “Tony called and asked

if I could stop by because he had a number of friends that he had invited to dinner and he

wanted to meet them. “I told him that I would be happy to come by if my schedule allowed it.

And it did. Although I couldn’t, I think, stay for dinner, so I remember meeting a bunch of

people who I had not met before. I frankly don’t remember what their names were. “Business

was not discussed at the meeting. It was more of a social meeting and they asked me questions

about the senate race and so forth and so on. “I have no specific recollection. They may have

been there. I can’t say unequivocally that I did not meet them, but I just don’t recall.”’ (Evelyn

Pringle, opednews.com)

Again, these answers by Obama are as interesting for the technique of evasion as they are for the

factual situation they refer to.

OBAMA’S PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS FOR GRAFT IN ACTION

At the end of June 2008, when Obama believed that he already had the Democratic presidential

nomination locked up, the Boston Globe published a limited hang out investigative report on graft

and corruption involving public housing and related issues in Chicago. This series was valuable for

the first-person accounts it offered of the immense human suffering and despair left behind in the

wake of the looting operations championed by Obama. It is also remarkable that Obama still

maintains that the Chicago model of public-and private partnerships (PPPs), despite its blatant and

scandalous failure in the Windy City, is the model he wants to bring to Washington to be applied to

the entire United States. The PPPs represent catastrophic public policy, and probably also embody a

sleazy payback by the Perfect Master to the various shady characters that have contributed to his

campaign fund, and now want to feed at the federal trough.

The Boston Globe evokes Obama’s archipelago of despair in graphic terms:

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 201

The squat brick buildings of Grove Parc Plaza, in a dense neighborhood that Barack Obama

represented for eight years as a state senator, hold 504 apartments subsidized by the federal

government for people who can’t afford to live anywhere else. But it’s not safe to live here.

About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as

collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang

open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of

the complex as an 11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.

Grove Parc has become a symbol for some in Chicago of the broader failures of giving public

subsidies to private companies to build and manage affordable housing - an approach strongly

backed by Obama as the best replacement for public housing. As a state senator, the

presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of

tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a

presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust

Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year. But a Globe review found

that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal

subsidies - including several hundred in Obama’s former district - deteriorated so completely

that they were no longer habitable. Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were

developed and managed by Obama’s close friends and political supporters. Those people

profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama’s constituents suffered. Tenants lost their

homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted. Some of the residents of Grove Parc say they

are angry that Obama did not notice their plight. The development straddles the boundary of

Obama’s state Senate district. Many of the tenants have been his constituents for more than a

decade. “No one should have to live like this, and no one did anything about it,” said Cynthia

Ashley, who has lived at Grove Parc since 1994.’ (Binyamin Appelbaum, “Grim proving

ground for Obama’s housing policy,” Boston Globe, June 27, 2008)

It is bad enough that things are this way in Chicago; is this then what we want to impose on

every city in the United States? Obama says it is.

CASE STUDY: CECIL BUTLER, SLUMLORD AND OBAMA BACKER

We have already encountered Valerie Jarrett as an early patroness of the rise of Michelle Obama

in the corrupt Chicago city bureaucracy. For the Boston Globe, she features prominently in the

Chicago housing story along with Allison Davis, the boss of Obama’s old law firm, and, of course,

with Tony Rezko:

Among those tied to Obama politically, personally, or professionally are: Valerie Jarrett, a

senior adviser to Obama’s presidential campaign and a member of his finance committee.

Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Co., which managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 until

this winter and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by

the federal government in 2006, after city inspectors found widespread problems. Allison

Davis, a major fund-raiser for Obama’s US Senate campaign and a former lead partner at

Obama’s former law firm. Davis, a developer, was involved in the creation of Grove Parc and

has used government subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,500 units in Chicago, including a

North Side building cited by city inspectors last year after chronic plumbing failures resulted in

raw sewage spilling into several apartments….Rezko’s company used subsidies to rehabilitate

more than 1,000 apartments, mostly in and around Obama’s district, then refused to manage the

units, leaving the buildings to decay to the point where many no longer were habitable.

Campaign finance records show that six prominent developers - including Jarrett, Davis, and

202 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Rezko - collectively contributed more than $175,000 to Obama’s campaigns over the last

decade and raised hundreds of thousands more from other donors. Rezko alone raised at least

$200,000, by Obama’s own accounting.

The Boston Globe also includes a somewhat lower level figure as an example of the broader

clientele implicated in these operations:

One of those contributors, Cecil Butler, controlled Lawndale Restoration, the largest subsidized

complex in Chicago, which was seized by the government in 2006 after city inspectors found

more than 1,800 code violations.’ (Binyamin Appelbaum, “Grim proving ground for Obama’s

housing policy,” Boston Globe, June 27, 2008)

The Chicago landscape is filled with individuals who claim to have once been civil rights

activists, but who now seem to be concentrating on graft; Obama himself is an example. The Boston

Globe writes:

Chicago’s struggles with the deterioration of its subsidized private developments seemed to

reach a new height in 2006, when the federal government foreclosed on Lawndale Restoration,

the city’s largest subsidized-housing complex. City inspectors found more than 1,800 code

violations, including roof leaks, exposed wiring, and pools of sewage. Lawndale Restoration

was a collection of more than 1,200 apartments in 97 buildings spread across 300 blocks of

west Chicago. It was owned by a company controlled by Cecil Butler, a former civil rights

activist who came to be reviled as a slumlord by a younger generation of activists. […] In 1995,

Butler’s company got a $51 million loan from the state to fund additional renovations at

Lawndale Restoration. In 2000 Butler’s company brought in Habitat Co. to help manage the

complex. Nonetheless, the buildings deteriorated badly. The problems came to public attention

in a dramatic way in 2004, after a sport utility vehicle driven by a suburban woman trying to

buy drugs struck one of the buildings, causing it to collapse. City inspectors arrived in the

ensuing glare, finding a long list of code violations, leading city officials to urge the federal

government to seize the complex.’ (Binyamin Appelbaum, “Grim proving ground for Obama’s

housing policy,” Boston Globe, June 27, 2008)

Valerie Jarrett, who has been part of Obama’s traveling entourage during much of the primary

season, turns out to be a dedicated ideologue of the public-and private partnership, that is to say, of

privatization in a way which would be typical of a Friedmanite economics professor at the

University of Chicago:

Jarrett, a powerful figure in the Chicago development community, agreed to be interviewed but

declined to answer questions about Grove Parc, citing what she called a continuing duty to

Habitat’s former business partners. She did, however, defend Obama’s position that publicprivate

partnerships are superior to public housing. “Government is just not as good at owning

and managing as the private sector because the incentives are not there,” said Jarrett, whose

company manages more than 23,000 apartments. “I would argue that someone living in a poor

neighborhood that isn’t 100 percent public housing is by definition better off.”’ (Binyamin

Appelbaum, “Grim proving ground for Obama’s housing policy,” Boston Globe, June 27, 2008)

This, we should recall, is one of Michelle Obama’s closest friends and indeed in many ways the

initial sponsor of her career. Concepts like the “Chicago development community” may translate

into “the Chicago graft community” on closer examination.

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 203

INSPIRATIONAL: OBAMA ONCE EYED A CAREER AS A SLUMLORD

As we have already seen, Obama’s close cooperation with Rezko and Davis goes back almost

twenty years. Obama now claims that part of the affinity among these figures was their shared

ideology in favor of the public-private partnership, a setup which appears to combine the worst

disadvantages of government ownership with all the pitfalls of private rapacity: Obama ‘once told

the Chicago Tribune that he had briefly considered becoming a developer of “affordable housing.”

But after graduating from Harvard Law School in 1991, he turned down a job with Tony Rezko’s

development company, Rezmar, choosing instead to work at the civil rights law firm Davis, Miner,

Barnhill & Galland, then led by Allison Davis. The firm represented a number of nonprofit

companies that were partnering with private developers to build affordable housing with

government subsidies. Obama sometimes worked on their cases. In at least one instance, he

represented the nonprofit company that owned Grove Parc, Woodlawn Preservation and Investment

Corp., when it was sued by the city for failing to adequately heat one of its apartment complexes.

Shortly after becoming a state senator in 1997, Obama told the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin that his

experience working with the development industry had reinforced his belief in subsidizing private

developers of affordable housing. “That’s an example of a smart policy,” the paper quoted Obama

as saying. “The developers were thinking in market terms and operating under the rules of the

marketplace; but at the same time, we had government supporting and subsidizing those efforts.”’

(Binyamin Appelbaum, “Grim proving ground for Obama’s housing policy,” Boston Globe, June

27, 2008) Smart policy? Chicago’s ghetto victims are not in agreement, as this article will show.

Obama’s election-year promises have generally turned out to be worthless, but the promise of

inflicting public-private partnerships on the entire country seems to be one promise which we really

can take to the bank:

Obama has continued to support increased subsidies as a presidential candidate, calling for the

creation of an Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which could distribute an estimated $500 million

a year to developers. The money would be siphoned from the profits of two mortgage

companies created and supervised by the federal government, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “I

will restore the federal government’s commitment to low-income housing,” Obama wrote last

September in a letter to the Granite State Organizing Project, an umbrella group for several

dozen New Hampshire religious, community, and political organizations. He added, “Our

nation’s low-income families are facing an affordable housing crisis, and it is our responsibility

to ensure this crisis does not get worse by ineffective replacement of existing public-housing

units.” (Binyamin Appelbaum, “Grim proving ground for Obama’s housing policy,” Boston

Globe, June 27, 2008)

Given the Chicago results, Obama has negative credibility on this issue. Will he make Rezko or

Daley the Secretary of Housing an Urban Development, which is already one of the most corrupt

cabinet agencies? With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now insolvent, where would Obama get the

money for so much graft?

We have seen the reports from an FBI mole at various times in recent years that Obama was

meeting Rezko once a day and more than once a day. Despite this, the Perfect Master wants us to

believe that he was not aware that the properties Rezko had received from the city administration

were now in total disrepair and unfit for human habitation.

Eleven of Rezmar’s buildings were located in the district represented by Obama, containing 258

apartments. The building without heat in January 1997, the month Obama entered the state

204 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Senate, was in his district. So was Jones’s building with rats in the walls and Frizzell’s building

that lacked insulation. And a redistricting after the 2000 Census added another 350 Rezmar

apartments to the area represented by Obama. But Obama has contended that he knew nothing

about any problems in Rezmar’s buildings. After Rezko’s assistance in Obama’s home purchase

became a campaign issue, at a time when the developer was awaiting trial in an unrelated

bribery case, Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times that the deterioration of Rezmar’s buildings

never came to his attention. He said he would have distanced himself from Rezko if he had

known. Other local politicians say they knew of the problems.’ (Binyamin Appelbaum, “Grim

proving ground for Obama’s housing policy,” Boston Globe, June 27, 2008)

Obama may have plausible deniability on some other issues, but he certainly has none here.

2004: A CECIL BUTLER BUILDING COLLAPSES

Things soon got so bad in the Cecil Butler concessions that the federal government had to step

into the midst of a mushrooming scandal. Given the regulatory laxity of the Bush regime, we can

gauge the horrendous situation that must have been required to get federal authorities to act.

Chicago’s struggles with the deterioration of its subsidized private developments seemed to

reach a new height in 2006, when the federal government foreclosed on Lawndale Restoration,

the city’s largest subsidized-housing complex. City inspectors found more than 1,800 code

violations, including roof leaks, exposed wiring, and pools of sewage. Lawndale Restoration

was a collection of more than 1,200 apartments in 97 buildings spread across 300 blocks of

west Chicago. It was owned by a company controlled by Cecil Butler, a former civil rights

activist who came to be reviled as a slumlord by a younger generation of activists. […] In 1995,

Butler’s company got a $51 million loan from the state to fund additional renovations at

Lawndale Restoration. In 2000 Butler’s company brought in Habitat Co. to help manage the

complex. Nonetheless, the buildings deteriorated badly. The problems came to public attention

in a dramatic way in 2004, after a sport utility vehicle driven by a suburban woman trying to

buy drugs struck one of the buildings, causing it to collapse. City inspectors arrived in the

ensuing glare, finding a long list of code violations, leading city officials to urge the federal

government to seize the complex.’ (Binyamin Appelbaum, “Grim proving ground for Obama’s

housing policy,” Boston Globe, June 27, 2008)

CECIL BUTLER’S VICTIMS RALLY AGAINST OBAMA, 2004

For those who had suffered from the rapacity of the “civil rights” slumlord Cecil Butler, there

was no doubt that Obama bore a major share of responsibility for the tragic decay of these housing

developments. At one point, the public rage was so great that Obama had to face a public

demonstration against his policies in the midst of his campaign to grab his Illinois seat in the U.S.

Senate. ‘In the midst of the uproar, a small group of Lawndale residents gathered to rally against the

Democratic candidate for the US Senate, Barack Obama. Obama’s Republican opponent, Alan

Keyes, trailed badly in the polls and was not seen as a serious challenger. But the organizers had a

simple message: Cecil Butler had donated $3,000 to Obama’s campaign. Habitat had close ties to

Obama. And Obama had remained silent about Lawndale’s plight. Paul Johnson, who helped to

organize the protest, said Obama must have known about the problems. “How didn’t he know?”

said Johnson. “Of course he knew. He just didn’t care.”’ (Binyamin Appelbaum, “Grim proving

ground for Obama’s housing policy,” Boston Globe, June 27, 2008)

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 205

This demonstration and the growing climate of public discontent, however, had absolutely no

impact on Obama, who was determined to continue on his path of graft:

Even as Lawndale Restoration and Rezmar’s buildings were foreclosed upon, and Grove Parc

and other subsidized developments fell deeper into disrepair, Obama has remained a steadfast

supporter of subsidizing private development.’ (Binyamin Appelbaum, “Grim proving ground

for Obama’s housing policy,” Boston Globe, June 27, 2008)

Nothing but nothing will pry Obama’s fingers away from the bankrupt and despicable model of

the public-private partnership, as the Obama campaign underlined once again after the close of the

primary campaign:

Throughout his career in public service, Barack Obama has advocated for the development of

mixed-income housing and public-private partnerships to create affordable housing as an

alternative to publicly subsidized, concentrated, low-income housing,” the Obama campaign

said in a statement provided to the Globe.’ (Binyamin Appelbaum, “Grim proving ground for

Obama’s housing policy,” Boston Globe, June 27, 2008)

A THREE-YEAR OLD TODDLER CRUSHED

TO DEATH AT THE CABRINI GREENS, JUNE 2008

The Chicago housing scandals have come to represent a massive political vulnerability for

Obama, even among those who would otherwise be sympathetic to his candidacy: “I’m not against

Barack Obama,” said Willie J.R. Fleming, an organizer with the Coalition to Protect Public Housing

and a former public housing resident. “What I am against is some of the people around him.” Jamie

Kalven, a longtime Chicago housing activist, put it this way: “I hope there is not much predictive

value in his history and in his involvement with that community.” (Binyamin Appelbaum, “Grim

proving ground for Obama’s housing policy,” Boston Globe, June 27, 2008)

The dirty public-private partnership deals favored by Obama claimed yet another victim in late

June when a small boy died in a bizarre accident when a piece of the steel barrier around his

housing complex came down on him, costing the toddler his life: ‘A 3-year-old boy was crushed to

death Friday evening by a large, rusted steel gate at the Cabrini-Green housing complex, prompting

a crowd to gather and hurl accusations of mismanagement at property managers. “How many

accidents happen over here because of failed inspections,” screamed Willie J.R. Fleming, a resident

and a director with the Coalition to Protect Public Housing. “There’s no accountability, there’s no

oversight of this.” (Chicago Tribune, June 28, 2008, noquarterusa.net)

The Cabrini Greens were already notorious in the late 1980s as one of the worst slum properties

in the world, buildings full of murder, narcotics, crime, and despair. 20 years later, Obama’s much

vaunted public-private partnerships had only made matters worse.

ALEXI GIANNOULIAS AND MICHAEL “JAWS” GIORANGO;

FRIENDS OF BARKY

Obama, who poses in public as a reformer who wants to restore good government and end

partisan haggling, has in fact been one of the most loyal soldiers of the corrupt Illinois Combine. It

is instructive to view the case of Alexi Giannoulias, the Combine’s 2006 choice for the sensitive

post of Illinois State Treasurer. Giannoulias, who had facilitated loans to a certain Michael

Giorango, a convicted bookmaker and prostitution ring promoter, was so sleazy that even some

206 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Combine stalwarts found that it was not politic to offer him their public endorsement. But Obama

had no such qualms, and gave the shady Giannoulias his stamp of approval forth with.

During the campaign, the Democratic speaker of the state House and other party leaders

criticized Giannoulias because of loans his family bank made to Michael “Jaws” Giorango, a

convicted felon. Obama stuck with Giannoulias after the revelations, though he did call on him

to explain the matter. “I’m going to ask Alexi directly what is happening,” Obama said in April

2006, according to the Chicago Tribune.81

The public has never gotten an answer. But Obama gave full support to this sleazy character:

In the 2006 Democratic primary, for example, Obama endorsed first-time candidate Alexi

Giannoulias for state treasurer despite reports about loans Giannoulias’ family-owned

Broadway Bank made to crime figures. Records show Giannoulias and his family had given

more than $10,000 to Obama’s campaign, which banked at Broadway.’ Obama endorsed the reelection

of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose administration is now heavily embroiled in the Rezko

corruption probe.’ (Chicago Tribune, June 12, 2007)

Obama had to be tolerant about convicted felons: if Barky can associate with Rezko, then surely

Giannoulias can associate with Jaws Giorango and smaller sharks. If Obama were a member of a

big city police force like the NYPD, he would be fired for associating with known criminals.

OBAMA A “POLITICAL PSYCHOPATH”

This affair led Pringle to observe:

Obama is a political psychopath. He exhibits no shame, no matter where his money comes

from. On September 5, 2007, the New York Post reported that, “Alexi Giannoulias, who became

Illinois state treasurer last year after Obama vouched for him, has pledged to raise $100,000 for

the senator’s Oval Office bid.” “Giannoulias is so tainted by reputed mob links,” the New York

Post noted, “that several top Illinois Dems, including the state’s speaker of the House and party

chairman, refused to endorse him even after he won the Democratic nomination with Obama’s

help.”’ (Evelyn Pringle, opednews.com)

Obama was also happy to have Giannoulias organize a fund-raiser for his campaign shortly

before the Iowa caucuses and the opening of the 2008 primary season: On September 5, 2007, the

New York Post reported that: “A man who has long been dogged by charges that the bank his family

owns helped finance a Chicago crime figure will host a Windy City fund-raiser tonight for Senator

Barack Obama.” Alex Giannoulias had vowed to raise $100,000 for Obama’s campaign. Naïve

persons who believe the fairy tale that Obama is financed by millions of widow’s mites had better

think again in the light of these revelations.

PAY TO PLAY OBAMA: LOGOTHETE OF GRAFT AND CORRUPTION

Daniel J. Kelly of the Chicago Daily Observer examines Obama’s relation to and political

record regarding Alexi Giannoulias in the light of the mechanisms know to govern the Combine,

where the first commandment is Pay to play, meaning in effect pay bribes however disguised to

take part in the looting:

“Pay to play” seems to be another disturbing constant in Obama’s meteoric political rise. He

always seems to be available to the highest bidder. … the curious relationship between Obama

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 207

and his political protégé, Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has not been widely

publicized. Locally, the story generated some brief coverage, but the subject has been barely

examined by the mainstream media. Bloggers are familiar with the tale, but Obama has skated

on this subject with the general public. Some background is necessary: after spending a season

playing professional basketball in Greece, Giannoulias returned to the USA and enrolled in law

school at Tulane University in New Orleans, where every day is Mardi Gras. Less than three

years after being admitted to practice in Illinois, Giannoulias launched his campaign for State

Treasurer. With the financial support of his family banking business and US Senator Barack

Obama’s endorsement, this politically inexperienced individual secured the Democratic

nomination. In the general election campaign, State Democratic Party Chairman, Michael

Madigan, continued to keep Giannoulias at arm’s length. Madigan had supported a different

candidate in the primary and disseminated disquieting rumors about the business background of

Giannoulias, the former Vice President and Senior Loan Officer of the Broadway Bank, which

was owned by his family members. During his brief tenure in the banking industry, Giannoulias

appears to have approved loans to convicted felons with ties to organized crime. One such loan

applicant was a convicted bookmaker with an alleged sideline business promoting prostitution.

Our colleague Russ Stewart was one of the few who pointed out the fact that Obama played the

role of kingmaker in Giannoulias’ successful first time candidacy. At the age of thirty,

Giannoulias became the youngest treasurer in Illinois history. What qualified Giannoulias for

public office and earned him Obama’s endorsement? He plays basketball with Obama. No park

district field house or asphalt parking lot games for these two men of the people. When in

Chicago, Obama and his pal prefer to play at the exclusive East Bank Club. Throughout the

primary season, Giannoulias has hit the campaign trail to play Obama in pick up games on the

dates of the respective state primaries. Obama finds it relaxing to play hoops when ballots are

being cast. Apart from shooting buckets, it also helped that Giannoulias and his family members

have contributed so generously to the various Obama campaigns. Giannoulias and his family

are not absolutely committed true believers in the Democratic Party and its causes, however, as

they hedged their bets by contributing to the House Republican Congressional Campaign

Committee and to have also made campaign contributions to former Governor George H. Ryan.

(“A Consumer’s Guide to Obama and the Company That He Keeps,” Daniel J. Kelley, The

Chicago Daily Observer , May 22, 2008.)

Obama thus exhibits a pervasive pattern of graft through his policy of assisting his campaign

contributors to get their hands into the public till. This method of graft is applied to donors of all

ethnic groups and backgrounds, provided that they fork over campaign funds:

In 2001, for example, Obama steered $75,000 to a South Side charity called FORUM Inc.,

which promised to help churches and community groups get wired to the Internet. Records

show five FORUM employees, including one who had declared bankruptcy, had donated

$1,000 apiece to Obama’s state Senate campaign. As the grant dollars were being disbursed to

FORUM, the Illinois attorney general filed a civil lawsuit accusing the charity’s founder of

engaging in an unrelated kickback scheme. Just days after the suit was filed, Obama quietly

returned the $5,000 in donations. “I didn’t want to be associated with money that potentially

might have been tainted,” he said. FORUM founder Yesse Yehudah, who unsuccessfully ran for

state Senate against Obama in 1998, denied wrongdoing and, without admitting guilt, settled the

attorney general’s lawsuit by paying $10,000 to a charity. (Chicago Tribune, May 3, 2007)

208 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

STATE SENATOR FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

The Hyde Park suburb which Obama represented in the Illinois State Senate was notorious as a

plantation for the University of Chicago, and thus for the Rockefeller (and Trilateral) interests more

broadly speaking. Hyde Park is located on the South Side of Chicago, about seven miles south of

the Loop. The University of Chicago is a citadel of reaction and oligarchism, having been founded

in 1890 by the American Baptist Education Society and the oil magnate John D. Rockefeller. One

of the university’s key leaders between the world wars was Robert Maynard Hutchins, a high-level

operative of the US ruling elite. The term “Chicago boys” is the object of worldwide execration

because of the unspeakable crimes against humanity of the Chicago school of economics, most

prominently associated with the name of the right-wing anarchist and extremist Milton Friedman,

the top advisor of the brutal and murderous Pinochet regime in Chile.

THE NEW YORK TIMES WHITEWASHES OBAMA

Having now acquired some notion of the cesspool of corruption in which Obama has been

natating for decades, we can now proceed to briefly contemplate the absurdity of the cover-up of

some of these matters dished up by Obama’s backers at the New York Times. In a classic fallacy of

composition, the newspaper of record makes Obama’s alliance with State Senate boss Emil Jones

look like an elective affinity at the personal level, when it in fact represents an internal transaction

of The Combine:

Obama ‘positioned himself early on as a protégé of the powerful Democratic leader, Senator

Emil Jones, a beneficiary of the Chicago political machine. He courted collaboration with

Republicans. He endured hazing from a few black colleagues, played poker with lobbyists,

studiously took up golf. (“An awful lot happens on the golf course,” a friend, Jean Rudd, says

he told her.) With the assistance of Senator Jones, Mr. Obama helped deliver what is said to

have been the first significant campaign finance reform law in Illinois in 25 years. He brought

law enforcement groups around to back legislation requiring that homicide interrogations be

taped and helped bring about passage of the state’s first racial-profiling law. He was a chief

sponsor of a law enhancing tax credits for the working poor, played a central role in

negotiations over welfare reform and successfully pushed for increasing child care

subsidies.’(Janny Scott, “In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd,” New York Times,

July 30, 2007)

The measures sponsored by Obama, we sense, were simply acts of window dressing designed to

festoon his brag sheet later on as he moved up the ladder.

Naturally, even in an environment where most legislators were devoted supporters of the

Combine, Obama’s irrepressible arrogance and megalomania, his self-righteous posturing and

holier-than-thou gift for talking down to those around them, were sure to generate frictions, and so

it came to pass:

We could barely have meetings in caucus because Donne and Rickey [black legislators] would

give him hell,” said State Senator Kimberly A. Lightford, a Democrat and former chairwoman

of the Senate’s black caucus. “Donne would be, ‘Just because you’re from Harvard, you think

you know everything.’ Barack was like the new kid on the block. He was handsome and he was

mild mannered and he was well liked. Sometimes there was a little ‘Who’s this? He coming

here, he don’t know anything.” (Janny Scott, “In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and

Shrewd,” New York Times, July 30, 2007)

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 209

Already at this point in his life, Obama was exhibiting all the telltale signs of consuming

ambition for higher and higher public office, a quest wholly divorced from any notion of

achievement or public service on his part. This trait is so marked that even Obama acolytes

ventured to offer timid criticisms:

His critics say Mr. Obama could have accomplished much more if he had been in less of a hurry

to leave the Statehouse behind. Steven J. Rauschenberger, a longtime Republican senator who

stepped down this year, said: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his

eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a

great legislator.”’ (Janny Scott, “In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd,” New York

Times, July 30, 2007)

All mincing of words aside, Obama was a thoroughgoing mediocrity in Springfield.

In a pattern which Americans have now come to know: after a short stint in the State Senate and

precious little to show for it, Obama tried to grab a seat in the US House of Representatives. But

this time he had a serious opponent in the person of Congressman Bobby Rush. Another pattern of

Obama’s public life is that he has been unable to win public office in any seriously contested

election, and his resounding defeat by Bobby Rush confirms this rule. But losing his congressional

race only made Obama more greedy for advancement, this time into the United States Senate with a

significant helping hand from Emile Jones of the Combine.

Within three years of his arrival, Mr. Obama ran for Congress, a race he lost. When the

Democrats took control of the State Senate in 2003 — and Mr. Jones replaced James Philip,

known as Pate, a retired Pepperidge Farm district manager who served as president of the

Senate — Mr. Obama made his next move. “He said to me, ‘You’re now the Senate president,’”

Mr. Jones recalled. “‘You have a lot of power.’ I said, ‘I do?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘Tell me

what kind of power I have.’ He said, ‘You have the power to make a U.S. senator.’ I said, ‘I

do?’ He said, ‘You do.’ I said, ‘If I’ve got that kind of power, do you know of anyone that I can

make?’ He said, ‘Yeah. Me.’” (Janny Scott, “In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and

Shrewd,” New York Times, July 30, 2007)

But these are not two drifting individuals who meet by chance; they are two cogs in The

Combine.

BETRAYING ALICE PALMER TO GET INTO THE STATE SENATE UNOPPOSED

In making his first run for the state Senate, Obama went out of his way to have all of his

opponents thrown off the ballot with the help of a high-priced election lawyer who appeared out of

nowhere as if by magic at precisely the right moment to help Obama’s career – no doubt an

example of Trilateral magic.82 One of the victims of this operation was a veteran black female civil

rights leader who had been something of a benefactress to Obama – long-time State Senator Alice

L. Palmer. With his usual ruthlessness and brutality, Obama had Palmer thrown off the ballot along

with the others without so much as a second thought:

Three years later, a congressman from the South Side of Chicago was convicted of having sex

with a minor. A Democratic state senator from his district, Alice L. Palmer, decided to run for

the seat. Carol Anne Harwell, Mr. Obama’s first campaign manager, said Ms. Palmer invited

Mr. Obama, then 35, to run for her seat. But after losing in the primary, Ms. Palmer had second

thoughts. A delegation of her supporters asked Mr. Obama to step aside. He not only declined,

but his campaign staff challenged the signatures on Ms. Palmer’s campaign petitions and kept

210 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

her off the ballot. It was nothing personal: They did the same thing to every other Democrat in

the race. “He knocked off the incumbent, so that right there gave him some notoriety,” said Ron

Davis, who served as Mr. Obama’s precinct coordinator. “And he ran unopposed — which for a

rookie is unheard of.”’ (Janny Scott, “In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd,” New

York Times, July 30, 2007) Trilateral magic again.

Democratic Senator Paul Simon of Illinois may perhaps be recalled by some Americans as the

boring buffoon in the bow tie who competed in the Democratic primaries for the presidential

nomination back in the 1980s. Simon’s role appears to have been to put a professorial, “good

government” façade on the nefarious activities of the Combine. This included the absurdity of a

bipartisan ethics bill that would in effect apply a thin film of lipstick to the corrupt porker of graft

rollicking in the Combine’s pigsty.

Illinois had one of the least regulated campaign finance systems in the country and a history of

corruption. Paul Simon, the former United States senator, was running a public policy institute

at Southern Illinois University and asked each of the four legislative leaders to name a trusted

lawmaker to work on a bipartisan ethics bill. Mr. Jones recalls receiving a call from Abner J.

Mikva, a former Chicago congressman, federal judge and friend of Mr. Simon. Judge Mikva,

who had once tried to hire Mr. Obama as a law clerk, suggested him for the job. Mr. Jones says

he knew that the new senator was hard-working and bright and that few others would want the

assignment. “He caught pure hell,” Mr. Jones said of Mr. Obama. “I actually felt sorry for him

at times.” The job required negotiating across party lines to come up with reform proposals,

then presenting them to the Democratic caucus. Senator Kirk Dillard, the Republican Senate

president’s appointee, said, “Barack was literally hooted and catcalled in his caucus.” On the

Senate floor, Mr. Dillard said, “They would bark their displeasure at me, and then they’d unload

on Obama.” (Janny Scott, “In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd,” New York Times,

July 30, 2007)

COSMETIC REFORMS TO CAMOUFLAGE THE COMBINE

Today Obama claims that his campaign does not take contributions from federal lobbyists, but in

reality he is eager to take contributions from the law partners, close associates, families, and friends

of those lobbyists through the notorious corrupt practice known as bundling. Here we see another

aspect of Obama’s method as it has evolved since his days in Springfield, Illinois. He defines some

aspect of the prevalent corruption in the most narrow and exclusive possible way, and then parades

his stance on this tiny slice of the overall corruption pie as offering proof of his peerless probity and

rectitude. So far, quite a few suckers have been taken in by this tactic.

“I know [Obama] wanted to limit contributions by corporations or labor unions, and he

certainly wanted to stop the transfers of huge amounts of money from the four legislative

caucus leaders into rank-and-file members’ campaigns,” Mr. Dillard said. “But he knew that

would never happen. So he got off that kick and thought disclosure was a more practical way to

shine sunlight on what sometimes are unsavory practices.” (Janny Scott, “In Illinois, Obama

Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd,” New York Times, July 30, 2007)

Affluent suburbanites interested in clean government rather than in securing broad-based

economic benefits for the disadvantaged went ga-ga over Obama’s exercise in cosmetic and

window-dressing reform. All the while, the wheels of the Combine were grinding out graft in the

back room. One example of Obama’s successful deception was a measure for public disclosure of

campaign contributions:

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 211

The disclosure requirement “revolutionized Illinois’s system,” said Cindi Canary, executive

director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. By giving journalists immediate access

to a database of expenditures and contributions, it transformed political reporting. It also, she

said, “put Senator Obama on a launching pad and put the mantle of ethics legislator on his

crown.” (Janny Scott, “In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd,” New York Times,

July 30, 2007)

OBAMA AS “THE WHITE MAN IN BLACKFACE IN OUR COMMUNITY”

Obama by now was receiving largess from a number of foundation payrolls, so he could afford

some clean government posturing which some of his colleagues could not. This again led to

conflicts:

By many accounts, there was already friction between him and Mr. Hendon, whose West Side

Chicago district is among the poorest in the state, and Mr. Trotter. When Mr. Trotter and Mr.

Obama both ran for Congress two years later — unsuccessfully, it turned out — Mr. Trotter told

a reporter that Mr. Obama was viewed in part as “the white man in blackface in our

community.” Mr. Dillard said, “I remember Rickey chiding Obama that, ‘What do you know,

Barack? You grew up in Hawaii and you live in Hyde Park. What do you know about the

street?’ To which Obama shot back: ‘I know a lot. I didn’t exactly have a rosy childhood. I’m a

street organizer by profession and a lot of my area, once you get outside the University of

Chicago neighborhoods, is just as tough as your West Side, Rickey.’ In an interview, Mr.

Trotter said Mr. Obama had arrived “wanting to change things immediately,” as though he

intended “to straighten out all these folks because they’re crooks.” … Mr. Hendon, who says he

is writing a book on electoral politics called “Backstabbers,” said ethics reform would have

passed with or without Mr. Obama because of scandals that preceded it. He said the sponsors of

ethics bills tended to be “wealthy kind of people, the same kind of people who vote against pay

raises, who don’t need $5,000 a year. Whereas senators like me from poorer communities, we

could use that $5,000.”’ (Janny Scott, “In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd,” New

York Times, July 30, 2007)

ILLINOIS STATE SENATE: A RACE OF BETRAYAL

Of course, it was not just the old Weathermen who were mobilized to support Obama’s bid for

public office. Many parts of the left countergang scene were mobilized to advance the career of the

candidate chosen by the Trilateral financiers: As one ultra-right-wing observer notes,

Obama’s socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the

Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat.

Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to

eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the “champions” of “Chicago’s democratic left” and a longtime

socialist activist. Obama’s stint as a “community organizer” in Chicago has gotten some

attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been

generally ignored. (Cliff Kinkaid, http://www.aim.org/aim-column/Obamas-internationalsocialist-

connections/)

212 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

THE NEW MUSICAL: OBAMA’S LOT

The appalling contrast between Obama’s presidential campaign and its hypocritical slogans

about hope and change, on the one hand, and a horrendous reality of the senator’s corruption

was a national mockery of the first magnitude. Obama claimed that he was setting out to teach

the world to hold the United States in high regard once again, but the first result of his

candidacy was to demonstrate to any rational foreign observer that most Americans were abject

fools, eager to listen to edifying verbiage from the mouth of a sleazy Chicago ward heeler who

was lucky not to be standing in the dock next to his godfather Rezko. Fortunately, the spirit of

self irony is not dead in Chicago, and a local journalist parodied the resulting situation by

imagining a new musical comedy along the lines of Lerner and Lowe’s Kennedy era Camelot,

but this time featuring Obama and Rezko as knights of a roundtable of graft. John Kass asked

himself,

Can Tony Rezko — the indicted Illinois political fixer and Sen. Barack Obama’s personal real

estate fairy and fundraiser — carry a tune? Can Rezko really sing, loudly in a clear voice, in

that orange federal jumpsuit he’s forced to wear, after a federal judge on Tuesday revoked his

bond, figuring he’d run to Syria and skip out on his federal political corruption trial? If Rezko

can sing, there’s a starring role in a new musical I’m writing about politics and real estate called

“Obama’s Lot.” He’ll make a fortune if Obama becomes president. It’s sort of like “Camelot,”

with magic and demons and unicorns and an evil enchantress. Can’t you see Rezko now? He

waltzes across a national stage, surrounded by a chorus of Illinois politicians. They explain how

Rezko helped the Obamas in the purchase of their nice home and that sumptuous lot next door.

[…] But in a unique use of symbolism, “Obama’s Lot” involves a magical sword of power.

The brave young Obama pulls it from the cornerstone of Chicago’s City Hall and wields it

proudly before his superiors in the Illinois State Senate. And, after a limited Washington

engagement, he becomes president of the United States. A Hillary Clinton type plays the

sensual Morgan La Fay, who uses her husky voice as she’s constantly trying to wrest power

from the brave Obama. I’m not going to give it all away, but in my musical, Rezko walks

behind Obama, part willowy magician, part jealous jester. He’s constantly judging, winking

broadly at the audience during Obama’s few bouts with temptation.

In the finale, Rezko sings to the tune of “If Ever I Should Leave You,” familiar in the renditions

by Robert Goulet and Richard Harris:

If ever I would squeal on you/It shouldn’t be in autumn.

But it might just be in autumn/ as voters go to the polls.

I’m no rat in the springtime/ summer, winter or fall

But I don’t like being in here/No, not at all.83

REZKO AS OBAMA’S BOSS PENDERGAST:

A PERPETUALLY PENDING INDICTMENT

So why did the feds go to all the trouble of convicting Rezko and gathering plenty of evidence to

bring down Obama for good, if they were determined all along not to bring down the arrogant

Illinois senator? For the answer, we need to go back to 1944, a time when Franklin D. Roosevelt

had rescued and restored to the American presidency the full panoply of constitutional powers

intended by the framers. But Franklin D. Roosevelt, exhausted by his struggle with the world

economic depression and by his exertions to win World War II, was dying. Despite the fact that

V. Obama’s Heart of Darkness: Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, and Chicago Graft 213

FDR had saved their otherwise doomed system in 1933, the Wall Street oligarchs so hated and

resented the yoke of constitutional government that they were determined never again to allow a

real president to occupy the White House and exercise the actual powers prescribed by the U.S.

Constitution. From now, they vowed, only puppet presidents, mere marionettes obedient to the

dictates of Wall Street, would be permitted. The first step in reestablishing this Potemkin

presidency was to make sure that the Democratic Party’s 1944 vice presidential candidate would not

be Henry Wallace, a competent and capable representative of the basic philosophy of the New Deal

who might well have been capable of continuing the full constitutional presidency which Roosevelt

had been able to restore. Instead, the ruling class through various operatives demanded that Senator

Harry Truman of Missouri occupy the second place on the Democratic ticket. Truman had been an

artillery captain in World War I, had attempted to make a career of haberdashery, but had failed.

Truman had been attached himself to the corrupt political machine of boss Tom Pendergast, which

dominated Democratic party politics in Kansas City, Missouri. As a loyal cog in the corrupt Kansas

City machine, just as Obama has been a loyal cog in the filthy Chicago party apparat, Truman soon

found himself up to his neck in the then prevalent forms of graft and corruption. In 1925, thanks to

boss Pendergast, Truman was elected as a county judge. In 1933, again with Pendergast’s blessing,

Truman was named Missouri’s director for the Federal Re-Employment program, a sub-set of the

Civil Works Administration (CWA), at the request of FDR’s patronage boss Postmaster General

James Farley as payback to Pendergast for delivering the Kansas City vote to Franklin D. Roosevelt

in the 1932 presidential election. Truman then became boss Pendergast’s handpicked candidate for

the US Senate in 1934. But in 1939, Pendergast was indicted for income tax evasion involving a

bribe. Pendergast was released after serving 15 months in prison at the nearby United States

Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, and died in 1945. Truman showed more loyalty towards boss

Pendergast than Obama has shown towards Rezko and Wright: as Vice President, Truman attended

Pendergast’s funeral a few days after being sworn in, and just a few weeks before Truman

succeeded Franklin D. Roosevelt as President.

It is safe to say that Truman always remained aware of the definite possibility that he too might

be sent to the penitentiary at Leavenworth because of his participation in the same corrupt activities

which had brought down his friend boss Pendergast. The ruling elite desired a president with a

built-in detonator of this type: Truman, after all, was inheriting the presidency at the peak of its

powers, bequeathed to him by FDR. What Wall Street oligarch could be sure under these

circumstances that Truman would follow orders in the way that, say, Coolidge had? Accordingly it

was necessary to deploy a sword of Damocles over Truman said in the form of a perpetually

pending indictment in the Pendergast Kansas City corruption scandal. Naturally, the ruling elite

had other means of manipulating little Harry. In foreign policy, he was dominated by the rightwing

Democrat and anti-Roosevelt renegade Dean Acheson, and adept depth of one of the lesser

Yale secret societies. Working closely with Acheson was soon W. Averell Harriman of Skull and

Bones and the Brown Brothers Harriman investment bank in Wall Street, which also featured the

presence of Prescott Bush, the grandfather of the current tenant of the White House. Acheson and

Harriman successfully dominated Truman’s options in the arena of world politics. In domestic

policy, a committee of Wall Street operatives chaired by Clark Clifford, himself something of a

Harriman man, was able to manipulate Truman in ways he was not even aware of, as Clifford has

boasted in his memoirs. Generally, Truman’s handlers were able to manipulate him most easily

through his periodic rage fits, which gave the White House palace guard an opportunity to direct the

puppet president’s hatred against some target of their choosing. But beneath all this, and

underpinning the entire edifice of control of the sitting president by forces above and behind the

Oval Office, there always remained the specter that Truman could be indicted for some dirty

214 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

dealings connected to the Pendergast machine. Today’s Republicans and other opponents of

Obama would do well to realize that it is very unlikely that the Rezko case will spontaneously

emerge as his central campaign issue in 2008, if this matter is left up to the wishes of the Wall

Street elite. The Rezko-Auchi-Alsammarae Illinois Combine scandal can be made to explode, but it

will not explode on its own. The strategy of the Wall Street faction is to elect Obama now and to

use the Rezko affair as a means of guaranteeing his future obedience, even though he would be

president during a world economic and financial depression of unprecedented severity, and would

also be able to mobilize something closely resembling a fascist movement in the streets and on the

Internet in support of his power.

CHAPTER VI: GRABBING A SENATE SEAT WITH A LITTLE

HELP FROM HIS TRILATERAL FRIENDS

The emerging oligarchy of the United States holds the vast majority of the American population

in deep contempt, considering them as Okies, bubbas, ghetto-dwellers, white trash, wetbacks,

Appalachians, crackers, red-necks, losers, marginals, rubes, and hicks. – Webster G. Tarpley,

Surviving the Cataclysm, 1998.

No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make

him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and

his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His is the story of a

man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself. – Shelby Steele, March 18, 2008

As political candidates go, Obama is an intrinsically weak specimen. In this chapter we will

further illustrate the two sides of the proposition that Obama has never in his life won public office

through a genuinely contested and disputed election. Obama’s preferred mode of taking office has

been by having his patrons in the banking establishment mobilize their resources to destroy his

opponents. We will see the truth of this basic tenet first in Obama’s failed 2000 attempt to take

away the seat of popular Southside Chicago Black congressmen Bobby Rush, who represented a

real opponent capable of contesting an election, and thus defeated Obama by a wide margin. We

will then see the other side of the proposition in the form of Obama’s Senate race in the year 2004,

when not one but two reasonably formidable opponents had to be destroyed by piloted scandals, and

when a carpetbagger and buffoon had to be brought in from far away Maryland, all to make sure

that Obama finally got into the Senate as the Trilaterals wanted. In the course of telling this story,

we will comment on the hollow gesture represented by Obama’s October 2002 speech concerning

the Iraq war, which will be put into the necessary perspective by showing Obama’s support for the

Iraq war and rejection of impeachment as a remedy after he got to the Senate. Our story here takes

on the character of a Bildungsroman, a novel of coming of age, or a rake’s progress — in this case,

the growth and advancement of one of the most ruthless, treacherous, and unprincipled political

opportunists of our age, who is at the same time one of the most reckless of politicians in his

personal life as well as in his devil- may-care attitude towards his own flip-flops.

2000: FAILED CHALLENGE TO CONGRESSMAN BOBBY RUSH

In 2000, Obama made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of

Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent Bobby Rush. Obama radically overestimated his

own chances of winning this election, and insisted on forging ahead despite advice to the contrary

from some of his oligarchical sponsors, including Newton Minnow. In Obama’s rash behavior in

undertaking this long shot bid for the Congress, we can see the signs of the overweening pride and

arrogance verging on megalomania which already characterized his mentality. The megalomania,

as we will see, has grown over the years, and by the late summer of 2008 was reaching proportions

worthy of the Emperor Nero.

Obama’s failed bid for the Congress is also instructive because, since both major candidates

were black, it removes the race issue from consideration, and can thus be used as a crucial

experiment to show that Obama’s fundamental weakness lies in his elitism and systematic

oligarchical refusal to understand the situation of working families in the United States today. It

also shows that Obama can be a very stubborn and headstrong subject:

216 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

The rise of Barack Obama includes one glaring episode of political miscalculation. Even friends

told Mr. Obama it was a bad idea when he decided in 1999 to challenge an incumbent

congressman and former Black Panther, Bobby L. Rush, whose stronghold on the South Side of

Chicago was overwhelmingly black, Democratic and working class. “Campaigns are always,

‘What’s the narrative of the race?’” said Eric Adelstein, a media consultant in Chicago who

worked on the Rush campaign. “In a sense, it was ‘the Black Panther against the professor.’

That’s not a knock on Obama; but to run from Hyde Park, this little bastion of academia, this

white community in the black South Side — it just seemed odd that he would make that choice

as a kind of stepping out.” (Janny Scott, “In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young

Obama,” New York Times, September 9, 2007)

When the idea of challenging Congressman Bobby Rush first occurred to him, Obama made

some calls to his backers. One was Newton Minow, who as chief of the Federal Communications

Commission had coined the phrase “vast wasteland” to describe network television back during the

Kennedy administration. But Minow was now far from the New Frontier, and had settled in as an

official of the Sidley Austin law firm, the lawyers on retainer for Tom Ayers’ Commonwealth

Edison, where Bernardine Dohrn and Michelle Obama had worked, and where Barky met Michelle

one summer. Not just Minow, but also his daughter, apparently worked as his case officers for the

promising young property called Obama. Newton Minow was skeptical that Obama could win the

race:

Mr. Obama called Mr. Minow, his former boss, asking to see him. Mr. Obama was eyeing the

Hyde Park Congressional seat held by Bobby L. Rush, a former Black Panther leader. “Are you

nuts?” Mr. Minow recalled telling the younger man. “Barack, I think this is a mistake.” Mr.

Minow flipped through his Rolodex, calling black businesspeople and asking them if they

would help finance Mr. Obama’s bid. He said he received a uniform answer: “No — let him

wait his turn.” Nevertheless, the impatient Mr. Obama jumped into the race. Brimming with

confidence, he equated Mr. Rush with “a politics that is rooted in the past” and cast himself as

someone who could reach beyond the racial divide to get things done. (Jo Becker and

Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York Times, May 11,

2008.)

OBAMA BLINDED BY OVERWEENING AMBITION

As for Congressman Rush, he realized that he was dealing with an egomaniac at the very least:

“He was blinded by his ambition,” Mr. Rush said. “Obama has never suffered from a lack of

believing that he can accomplish whatever it is he decides to try. Obama believes in Obama.

And, frankly, that has its good side but it also has its negative side.” Mr. Rush’s district, the

state’s most Democratic, was 65 percent black. And in 1999, it included not only Hyde Park,

home of the University of Chicago, but several relatively affluent Irish-American

neighborhoods. (Janny Scott, “In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama,”

New York Times, September 9, 2007)

LATTE LIBERALS FOR OBAMA

The divide between Rush and Obama therefore occurred along class lines rather than according

to any racial divide. The affluent and the elitists went for Obama, and the working families chose

the alternative of Rush.

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 217

There were plenty of college-educated, white, “latte liberals” with whom Mr. Obama polls well.

But he was barely known outside his state Senate district, in the eastern part of Mr. Rush’s

district. To win, he would have to expand his support among blacks, including the older,

church-going, Rush loyalists who vote disproportionately in primaries. “Taking on Bobby Rush

among black voters is like running into a buzz saw,” said Ron Lester, a pollster who worked for

Mr. Obama. “This guy was incredibly popular. Not only that, his support ran deep — to the

extent that a lot of people who liked Barack still wouldn’t support him because they were

committed to Bobby. He had built up this reserve of goodwill over 25 years in that community.”

(Janny Scott, “In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama,” New York Times,

September 9, 2007)

Congressman Rush had a strong base in the community, but he had exhausted some of his

resources by attempting to oust Mayor Daley from City Hall:

Mr. Rush had grown up in Chicago, enlisted in the Army, joined the Student Nonviolent

Coordinating Committee and helped found the Illinois Black Panther Party in 1968. He

coordinated a medical clinic that pioneered mass screening for sickle cell anemia, which

disproportionately affects blacks. As an alderman in 1992, he had ousted a black political

legend — Representative Charles A. Hayes, a veteran of the civil-rights and labor movements

who was caught up in a scandal that year involving the House bank. In February 1999, Mr.

Rush lost the mayoral primary to Mr. Daley, getting just 28 percent of the vote. Toni

Preckwinkle, a city alderman, encouraged Mr. Obama to challenge Mr. Rush. … Mr. Shomon

said he and Mr. Obama did an amateur poll to gauge his chances. They designed questions,

recruited volunteers to telephone 300 people, and concluded that Mr. Rush was vulnerable. Mr.

Shomon, who became Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, said, “Obama will tell you that this poll

was not the best poll in the world.” Asked why, he said, “Because the results didn’t turn out to

be correct.” State Senator Terry Link, a friend of Mr. Obama, said he advised him not to run.

“He tried to justify it: He didn’t feel Bobby was representing the area, he thought he could do a

better job,” Mr. Link recalled. “I think he misread it. He didn’t analyze the strength of the

congressman in that area, the will of the people.” Mr. Obama, in a brief telephone interview,

said, “In retrospect, there was very little chance of me winning that race. That was a good

lesson — that you should never be too impressed with your own ideas if your name recognition

in a Congressional district is only eight or whatever it was.” (Janny Scott, “In 2000, a

Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama,” New York Times, September 9, 2007),

It was not to be the last time that inaccurate polling shows up in an Obama campaign. Today,

polls favoring Obama are deliberately and repeatedly fabricated.

DAVID AXELROD, HOPEMONGER

Obama’s 2000 attempt to oust Rush is also the point in his career where he becomes

permanently wedded to the sinister political consultant, David Axelrod. Axelrod, as we have seen,

worked on political campaigns, and also dedicated much of his time to refuting charges of

corruption against Mayor Daley and other members of the Combine. In Obama’s tirades against

Rush as a practitioner of the old politics, we can already hear the rhetorical notes which have

resonated ad nauseam during Obama’s 2008 campaign, and which are building towards a crescendo

in Obama’s match up with the geriatric Senator McCain.

Obama…entered the race in late September, six months before the primary. He told voters that

Mr. Rush represented “a politics that is rooted in the past, a reactive politics that isn’t good at

218 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

coming up with concrete solutions.” He promised new leadership, reaching beyond the black

community and leading coalitions to take on contemporary problems, cut crime, expand health

care coverage, promote economic development and expand educational opportunities. But

several weeks later, Mr. Lester’s polling put Mr. Rush’s approval rating at 70 percent and Mr.

Obama’s at 8 percent. Forty-seven percent of the people polled favored Mr. Rush, 10 percent

favored Mr. Obama and 5 percent favored a third candidate, State Senator Donne E. Trotter,

who is also black. Almost all of Mr. Obama’s support initially came from whites, Mr. Lester

said.’ (Janny Scott, “In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama,” New York

Times, September 9, 2007)

Rush thus had some vulnerabilities, but he could also count on significant loyalty in the black

neighborhoods. Part of the election result was also determined by the shooting of Rush’s son in

what appeared to be a random street crime.

“Bobby Rush had not been the most active member of Congress from Illinois, but there was no

issue that made him particularly vulnerable,” [Obama ally Abner] Mikva said. “He hadn’t

robbed a bank or beaten his grandmother or things like that. In that respect, I was concerned.”

“Also,” Mr. Mikva said, “I had seen reform candidates running against incumbents in African-

American areas. It’s hard. Reform is not the most compelling issue to people who don’t have a

job.” Then in mid-October, Mr. Rush’s 29-year-old son, Huey Rich, was shot on his way home

from a grocery store. He hung between life and death for four days. Mr. Rush benefited from an

outpouring of sympathy; the wake was studded with politicians and there were renewed calls

for gun control, one of Mr. Rush’s causes. “That incident seemed to wash away any bad

feelings that voters had or might have had about Bobby Rush,” said Chris Sautter, whose

communications firm worked on the Obama campaign.’ (Janny Scott, “In 2000, a Streetwise

Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama,” New York Times, September 9, 2007)

OBAMA AWOL ON KEY GUN CONTROL VOTE:

WAS MICHELLE RESPONSIBLE?

Obama also committed the fundamental political error of considering a family vacation more

important than a vote in the state legislature on a key piece of gun control legislation, of which he

had been one of the main backers. Here we may hear the strident voice of Michelle Obama

demanding that she get her vacation, and gun control be damned:

Later, Gov. George Ryan called the Legislature into special session to try to re-enact a package

of gun-safety bills that the Illinois Supreme Court had overturned. Mr. Obama was voting

consistently in favor of it. But the session dragged on toward Christmas and an annual trip to

Hawaii to visit his grandmother, who had helped rear him. He had planned to return after the

holiday when the session was to resume, Mr. Shomon said. But a crucial vote came up earlier

than expected. With Mr. Obama and others absent, it failed by five votes. Mr. Obama, in

particular, came under fire. In his defense, he said he had not flown back in time because his

18-month-old daughter was sick. But he was hammered by editorial writers, the governor and

Mr. Rush. “We were thrown under the bus,” Mr. Shomon said. “It was a terrible day of news

coverage, since, A, we got blasted for not being there and, B, the perception was that Obama

doesn’t care about gun safety.”

By this point, Obama was one chastened megalomaniac, as he tells us himself in his generally

self-serving memoir:

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 219

In his book “The Audacity of Hope,” Mr. Obama wrote: “Less than halfway into the campaign,

I knew in my bones that I was going to lose. Each morning from that point forward I awoke

with a vague sense of dread, realizing that I would have to spend the day smiling and shaking

hands and pretending that everything was going according to plan.” Billboards in the district

read: “I’m sticking with Bobby.” A few black elected officials endorsed Mr. Obama but most

fell in line behind the incumbent. Ministers closed ranks. The Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of

the St. Sabina Catholic Church, said other ministers and congregation members called to

complain when he endorsed Mr. Obama.’ (Janny Scott, “In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran

Schooled a Bold Young Obama,” New York Times, September 9, 2007)

Pfleger is the renegade priest whose hate-filled and sexist mockery of Senator Clinton became a

scandal at the end of the primary season; Pfleger, we see, is a close friend of Obama and has been

for a long time. If Pfleger had wanted to follow the black community, he would have gone with

Rush. Instead, he went with Obama, the darling of the elite law firms, the foundations, and the

University of Chicago. Pfleger renders much more to the foundations than he renders unto God, or

even to his crackpot race theories.

CONGRESSMAN BOBBY RUSH: OBAMA AN “EDUCATED FOOL”

When the vote came in, Obama had 30.36 percent, and Representative Rush had 61.02 per cent.

In 2000, just as in 2008, a deciding factor in the voting was Obama’s pedantic and condescending

professorial elitism and holier-than-thou demeanor, which gave the clear impression that he was

concerned about oligarchical opinion, and not about the wishes of the constituencies in the

congressional district he was asking to represent. This is a trait which, one thinks, will be with

Obama as long as he lives.

Mr. Obama’s Ivy League education and his white liberal-establishment connections also

became an issue. Mr. Rush told The Chicago Reader, “He went to Harvard and became an

educated fool. We’re not impressed with these folks with these Eastern elite degrees.” Mr. Rush

and his supporters faulted him for having missed experiences that more directly defined the

previous generation of black people. “Barack is a person who read about the civil-rights protests

and thinks he knows all about it,” Mr. Rush told The Reader. Mr. Obama was seen as an

intellectual, “not from us, not from the ‘hood,” said Jerry Morrison, a consultant on the Rush

campaign. Asked recently about that line of attack, Mr. Rush minimized it as “chest beating,

signifying.” The implication was not exactly that Mr. Obama was “not black enough,” as some

blacks have suggested more recently; his credentials were suspect. “It was much more a

function of class, not race,” Mr. Adelstein said. “Nobody said he’s ‘not black enough.’ They

said he’s a professor, a Harvard elite who lives in Hyde Park.” (Janny Scott, “In 2000, a

Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama,” New York Times, September 9, 2007)

In the 2000 contest, class was trump, along with the uneasy perception that Obama talked a good

game in many fields in which he had never actually accomplished anything whatsoever.

Characteristically, Obama’s strong suit was fund-raising. Given the extent of Obama’s backing

from top elitist law firms and financial interests, this is hardly a surprise. Obama was a plutocandidate

in 2000, and remains one to the present day. But, as the Obama machine discovered in

places like Ohio and Pennsylvania in the spring of 2008, even outspending an opponent by three to

one, four to one or even five to one will not produce victory if the candidate is viewed as an

arrogant oligarchical elitist. In 2000,

220 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Mr. Obama proved unusually good at raising money. He raised more than $500,000 — less than

Mr. Rush but impressive for a newcomer — tapping connections at the University of Chicago,

Harvard Law School, law firms where he had worked, and a network of successful, black,

Chicago-based entrepreneurs who have played an important role in subsequent campaigns. He

was also catching on among whites in the district thanks to Thomas J. Dart, then a popular state

representative who is now Cook County sheriff. But President Clinton’s endorsement of Mr.

Rush, an early supporter of Mr. Clinton, dealt a final blow. According to Mr. Adelstein, Mr.

Clinton — after a personal request from Mr. Rush — overrode his own policy of not endorsing

candidates in primaries. Mr. Rush won the primary with 61.02 percent of the vote; Mr. Obama

had just over 30 percent. Mr. Obama was favored by whites but lost among blacks, Mr. Lester

said. Looking back, some say the magnitude of the loss reflected Mr. Obama’s failure to

connect with black, working-class voters. Mr. Mikva said, “It indicated that he had not made his

mark in the African-American community and didn’t particularly have a style that resonated

there.” (Janny Scott, “In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama,” New York

Times, September 9, 2007)

Clinton’s endorsement for Congressman Rush may account for some of the bitter hatred towards

the former president shown by Obama during the 2008 primary season. Obama, ever the

megalomaniac, had apparently gotten it into his head that his work on Project Vote in 1992 had

been decisive in delivering Illinois for Clinton in the 1992 presidential election. In 2000, Obama

evidently thought that Clinton owed him, and that the endorsement of Congressman Rush was

therefore a betrayal. Look for a President Obama to continue making emotional blunders of this

sort because of his hyper-inflated sense of his own importance.

A DEBUT FOR OBAMA’S DEMAGOGY OF “HOPE”

It was apparently in this race that Obama made the empty abstraction of “hope” into the

workhorse of his rhetorical arsenal. From a demagogic point of view, the multiple advantages of

using such a vacuous construct should be immediately evident. By using hope as his main slogan,

Obama was able to avoid specific commitments to concrete improvements in the living standards,

working conditions, and public infrastructure of the people he was appealing to. Hope is green, and

so is the chameleon most of the time. By talking about hope, Obama was able to skirt the issues of

how any new programs would be paid for, a touchy topic that would always grate on the ears of

greedy bankers who wanted to make sure that the bonded debt of the city of Chicago always came

first, since these were the payments which were flowing into their own pockets. We should also

note that the appeal to hope also presupposes very high levels of despair in the target community,

which apparently was indeed the case. One Obama backer from 2000 recalled:

“There was a gradual progression of Barack Obama from thoughtful, earnest policy wonk/civil

rights lawyer/constitutional law expert to Barack Obama the politician, the inspirer, the

speaker.” Denny Jacobs, a friend of Mr. Obama and a former state senator, agreed. “He

stumbled on the fact that instead of running on all the issues, quote unquote, that hope is the real

key,” he said. “Not only the black community but less privileged people are looking for that

hope. You don’t have to talk about health care, you have to talk about ‘the promise’ of health

care. Hope is a pretty inclusive word. I think he is very good at selling that.”’ (Janny Scott, “In

2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama,” New York Times, September 9,

2007)

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 221

“Hope for sale” might be the real motto of the Obama-Axelrod machine since 2000. For the sake

of historical accounting, we should point out that the rhetorical promise to deal with the despair of

the masses emerges as a distinct characteristic of the irrationalist totalitarian mass movements of the

1920s and 1930s in Europe.

After Obama had emerged victorious from a very peculiar U.S. Senate contest four years later,

Congressman Rush, who had been backing an opponent of Obama who was destroyed by piloted

scandals at just the right moment, commented bitterly that Barky had now become accustomed to

winning without a fight:

In March 2004, Mr. Obama won the Democratic primary for the United States Senate with

nearly 53 percent of the vote, racking up huge totals in wards he had lost to Mr. Rush in 2000.

(Mr. Rush, still stung by Mr. Obama’s challenge to him, endorsed a white candidate in the race,

Blair Hull, a former securities trader.) Mr. Obama won the general election with the biggest

margin ever in an Illinois Senate race. “For what he’s doing now, he didn’t need to march

against police brutality,” Mr. Rush said, invoking his own record. “He didn’t need to

demonstrate against poor meat in substandard grocery stores. He didn’t need that kind of stuff

because obviously his audience was at a different level.” (Janny Scott, “In 2000, a Streetwise

Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama,” New York Times, September 9, 2007)

OBAMA NETWORKS WITH THE ELITE

After his defeat by Congressman Rush, Obama concentrated on building networks that would

assist him in the more grandiose projects that were now on his horizon. Having disregarded the

advice of his mentor Newton Minnow, Obama now assiduously cultivated this hoary patriarch:

Mr. Obama was comfortable attending performances of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra with

city scions like Newton N. Minow, the father of Martha Minow. Mr. Minow, who had served in

the Kennedy administration and managed the white-shoe law firm of Sidley Austin when Mr.

Obama worked there after his first year of law school, began introducing him to Chicago’s

business titans. “He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park,” said Martha Minow, his former

law professor and a mentor. “It’s a place where you don’t have to wear a label on your

forehead. You can go to a bookstore and there’s the homeless person and there’s the professor.”

(Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York

Times, May 11, 2008.)

OBAMA LAUDS TERRORIST AYERS’ 1998 BOOK:

“A SEARING AND TIMELY ACCOUNT”

Obama also drew closer to the unreconstructed Weatherman terrorist bomber Bill Ayers, the son

of Thomas Ayers, the dean of the Chicago financier establishment. The cover story for this tandem

between Obama and Ayers was, incredibly enough, educational and juvenile justice reform, in

which Ayers now paraded himself as an expert:

The two men were involved in efforts to reform the city’s education system. They appeared

together on academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss the

juvenile justice system, an area of mutual concern. Mr. Ayers’s book on the subject won a rave

review in The Chicago Tribune by Mr. Obama, who called it “a searing and timely account.”

(Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York

Times, May 11, 2008.)

222 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

OBAMA: TERRORIST AYERS IS “COURAGEOUS”

We thus have from this time a rare published endorsement of Ayers by Obama which appears to

have been overlooked by many of the opposition researchers during the spring primary campaigns.

Obama’s encomium of Ayers came in a review of the terrorist bomber’s book on juvenile justice, a

review which was published just before Christmas in 1997: “As Bloomberg News reported

recently, Obama and Ayers have crossed paths repeatedly in the last decade. In 1997, Obama cited

Ayers’ critique of the juvenile justice system in a Chicago Tribune article on what prominent

Chicagoans were reading.”84 The title of Ayers’ work is A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of

Juvenile Court by William Ayers (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998). Obama’s full comment was: “A

searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue

hope from despair.” (Chicago Tribune, December 21, 1997) Even ten years ago, Barky was long on

hope.85 One can surmise that Ayers’ chances of becoming secretary of education under a future

Obama regime are higher than most observers would imagine.

Obama also pursued a relentless process of political networking:

Mr. Obama cultivated clients like Bishop Arthur M. Brazier, the influential pastor of an 18,000-

member black church and founding president of the Woodlawn Organization, which focuses on

improving conditions for blacks in a neighborhood adjacent to Hyde Park. The two men began

talking politics over tennis games at Chicago’s elite East Bank Club, Mr. Brazier recalled. (Jo

Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York

Times, May 11, 2008.)

Obama also solidified his relations with the foundation world, the ambient in which he feels

most at ease.

Mr. Obama further expanded his list of allies by joining the boards of two well-known charities:

the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation. These memberships have allowed him to help direct

tens of millions of dollars in grants over the years to groups that championed the environment,

campaign finance reform, gun control and other causes supported by the liberal network he was

cultivating. Mr. Brazier’s group, the Woodlawn Organization, received money, for instance, as

did antipoverty groups with ties to organized labor like Chicago Acorn, whose endorsement Mr.

Obama sought and won in his State Senate race. (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic

Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York Times, May 11, 2008.)

The Acorn endorsement is proving to be of significant value for Obama down to the present day.

OBAMA SLIPPERY AND SHIFTY ON THE ISSUES

During this entire phase, Obama’s positions on issues go beyond the simple flip-flop to confront

us with a bewildering and shimmering kaleidoscope of variegated answers. The simple attempt to

catalog Obama’s positions on the issues would require a task force in its own right. The Roman god

Proteus was famous for his ability to assume any shape he wanted, and Obama has inherited some

of this gift. Around 2000, Obama claimed to be in favor of gun control and opposed to the death

penalty, whereas in 2008 these views have been transmuted into their opposites by the alchemy of

the Perfect Master:

Today, Mr. Obama espouses more centrist views [on guns and the death penalty] and says a

campaign aide had incorrectly characterized his views on those issues — a shift that does not sit

well with some in the group, the Independent Voters of Illinois Independent Precinct

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 223

Organization. “We certainly thought those were his positions,” said David Igasaki, the group’s

chairman, who noted Mr. Obama had also interviewed with the group. “We understand that

people change their views. But it sort of bothers me that he doesn’t acknowledge that. He tries

to say that was never his view.”’ (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged

on the South Side,” New York Times, May 11, 2008.)

Obama was able to impress allies and observers with his matchless flexibility and ductility when

it came to compromise; this was all the easier for him because in the final analysis he had no

principles at all.

His willingness to negotiate — the interrogation law ended up with a host of exceptions —

gained him a reputation as a pragmatist who could sell compromise as a victory to all sides, said

Peter Baroni, then the legal counsel to the Republican caucus. “He took what came into the fray

as a very leftist bill, a very leftist proposal, a very non-law-enforcement bill,” Mr. Baroni said,

“and he appeased law enforcement and brought everyone around to support it.” (Jo Becker and

Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York Times, May 11,

2008.)

Obama has demonstrably always instinctively tended to the pro-austerity position demanded by

the financiers and bankers who own him and who have fostered his career. This approach is clearly

evident in Obama’s claims about his sponsorship of welfare to work programs, in which he claims

that he reduced the welfare rolls by 80% — meaning that many needy persons were simply

jettisoned by the system to preserve loot needed by the Combine and its clients. In his early years,

Obama would answer the pleas of his constituents for some practical benefit with a browbeating,

pedantic lecture on the tightness of the budget and the need for budget austerity. Now, Obama

became more cunning. He now preferred to co-opt demands for significant material improvements

in the life of the black community by delivering patronage payments to those who made themselves

spokespersons for such demands. Compared to real broad-based reform, the expense of this

approach for the system was trifling. An example of this is Obama’s transfer of something like a

quarter of a million dollars of public funds to the renegade priest Father Pfleger, who could be

counted on to suppress demands that might call into question the domination of Chicago by

parasitical financiers.

Before his loss to Mr. Rush, Mr. Obama’s typical response for requests for state money would

be a lecture, recalled Dan Shomon, a former Obama aide. “He would say something like: ‘You

know what, you’re not going to get your money, and you know why? Let me explain the state

budget,’” Mr. Shomon said. “Then he’d give a 20-minute treatise on how the Republicans

wouldn’t raise taxes, so there wasn’t any money to do what they wanted to do.” Now, Mr.

Obama more eagerly met the demands for spending earmarks for churches and community

groups in his district, said State Senator Donne E. Trotter, then the ranking Democrat on the

Senate Appropriations Committee. “I know this firsthand, because the community groups in his

district stopped coming to me,” Mr. Trotter said. Typical of Mr. Obama’s earmarks was a

$100,000 grant for a youth center at a Catholic church run by the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a

controversial priest who was one of the few South Side clergymen to back Mr. Obama against

Mr. Rush. Father Pfleger has long worked with South Side political leaders to reduce crime and

improve the community. But he has drawn fire from some quarters for defending the Nation of

Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and inviting him to speak at his church. Father Pfleger, who did

not return calls for comment, is one of the religious leaders whose “faith testimonials” Mr.

Obama has posted on his presidential campaign Web site. David Axelrod, the chief strategist for

224 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

the Obama presidential campaign, said that Father Pfleger was “remaking the face” of

Chicago’s South Side and that all of Mr. Obama’s earmarks went to worthy programs like his.

(Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York

Times, May 11, 2008.)

OBAMA’S BID FOR THE US SENATE

With Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald not getting along with the bosses of the Combine,

Obama it now sensed that the main chance might be in the offing:

With his black base more secure, Mr. Obama began in 2002 to contemplate a run for the United

States Senate. “I had lunch with him at the Quadrangle Club, and we were discussing the

different bases he had to touch. I said, ‘You have to talk to the Jackson boys first,’” Mr. Mikva

recalled, referring to Representative Jackson and his father, the Rev. Jesse Jackson. “Because

Jesse Jackson Jr. had his eye on that seat. He said, ‘I know. I’m working on that.’” Mr. Obama

soon sat down with the younger Mr. Jackson at the 312 Chicago restaurant. Michelle Obama

had attended high school with Mr. Jackson’s sister and been close to the family for years, and

the congressman had attended the Obamas’ wedding. “He said, ‘Jesse, if you’re running for the

U.S. Senate I’m not going to run,’” Mr. Jackson recalled. Mr. Jackson had already decided

against it, and he gave Mr. Obama his blessing. (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic

Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York Times, May 11, 2008.)

With the Jesse Jackson machine neutralized, Obama had removed one significant obstacle on his

way to the world’s most exclusive club.

THE PHANTOM ANTI-WAR SPEECH OF OCTOBER 2002

Obama’s October 2002 speech in downtown Chicago opposing the notion of a US attack on Iraq

furnished the only concrete reason many of his followers could cite to justify his bid to take the

presidency. Unfortunately, this speech is as hard to pin down as ectoplasm. Obama’s antiwar

speech is like the Dao of the old Chinese mystic Lao-Tse: it is everywhere and nowhere at the same

time. There is no film of the speech. There is no audio recording. There is no authoritative text.

The version of the speech that some people believe they have seen is in fact a reenactment which

we can safely assume has been embellished and enhanced to a fare thee well.86 Naturally, it was

better to be against the Iraq war in October 2002 than it was to be in favor of it. But unfortunately

for Obama, his claim is much broader: he claims that he has consistently opposed the Iraq war from

October 2002 until the present. This is simply a big lie. Obama has gone through any number of

opportunistic transmogrifications in his Iraq position, as in his other positions on virtually every

issue. Most glaring in this context has been his hyper-aggressive proposals to bomb Iran, and more

recently Pakistan.

As for Obama’s much touted openness to the Arab world, even in his dubious allies from the

Chicago Arab community have at length realized that this was a purely opportunistic pose sure to be

jettisoned when expediency dictated:

“He has a pattern of forming relationships with various communities and as he takes his next

step up, kind of distancing himself from them and then positioning himself as the bridge,” said

Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian-American author and co-founder of the online publication

Electronic Intifada, who became acquainted with Mr. Obama in Chicago. (Jo Becker and

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 225

Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York Times, May 11,

2008)

Even the fabled October 2002 Chicago antiwar speech came equipped with a series of escape

hatches and emergency exits which the candidate could use to climb back on the warmonger

bandwagon if that seemed to be politic:

Even moments that supporters see as his boldest are tempered by his political caution. The

forceful speech he delivered in 2002 against the impending Iraq invasion — a speech that has

helped define him nationally — was threaded with an unusual mantra for a 1960s-style antiwar

rally: “I’m not opposed to all wars.” It was a refrain Mr. Obama had tested on his political

advisers, and it was a display of his ability to speak to the audience before him while keeping in

mind the broader audience to come. (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics,

Forged on the South Side,” New York Times, May 11, 2008)

AN SDS PRODUCTION STARRING CRYPTO-WEATHERMAN OBAMA

We have seen in a previous chapter that Obama’s speech against the Iraq war was in fact an

opportunity delivered to him by his friends among the SDS veterans who seem to flock to his

support at every critical juncture, as if by Trilateral magic. A key figure in organizing this

performance was

Marilyn Katz, who gave him entry into another activist network: the foot soldiers of the white

student and black power movements that helped define Chicago in the 1960s. As a leader of

Students for a Democratic Society then, Ms. Katz organized Vietnam War protests, throwing

nails in the street to thwart the police. But like many from that era, Ms. Katz had gone on to

become a politically active member of the Chicago establishment, playing in a regular poker

game with Mr. Miner while working as a consultant to his nemesis, Mayor Daley. “For better or

worse, this is Chicago,” said Ms. Katz, who has held fund-raisers for Mr. Obama at her home.

“Everyone is connected to everyone.” (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics,

Forged on the South Side,” New York Times, May 11, 2008.)

COURTESY OF AN OLD CARTER NETWORK

Obama’s antiwar speech, however, could hardly have taken place without crucial input from the

limousine liberals of Chicago’s Lakeshore Drive, North of the loop.

Betty Lu Saltzman, a Democratic doyenne from Chicago’s lakefront liberal crowd, convened a

small group of activists, including Ms. Katz, in her living room to organize a rally to protest the

United States’ impending invasion of Iraq. It was late September 2002, and Mr. Obama was on

the top of Ms. Saltzman’s list of desired speakers. She first met him when he ran the black voter

registration drive in the 1992 election, and was so impressed that she immediately took him

under her wing, introducing him to wealthy donors and talking him up to friends like Mr.

Axelrod. But with just a few days to go before the rally, Ms. Saltzman was having trouble

reaching Mr. Obama. Finally, she said she left word with his wife. But before Mr. Obama called

her back, he dialed up some advice. With his possible run for the United States Senate, he

wanted to speak with Mr. Axelrod and others about the ramifications of broadcasting his

reservations about a war the public was fast getting behind. An antiwar speech would play to

his Chicago liberal base, and could help him in what was expected to be a hotly contested

primary, they told him, but it also could hurt him in the general election. “This was a call to

226 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

assess just how risky was this,” said Pete Giangreco, who along with Mr. Axelrod described the

conversation. When Mr. Obama tossed out the idea of calling it a “dumb war,” Mr. Giangreco

said he cringed. “I remember thinking, ‘this puts us in the weak defense category, doesn’t it?’

(Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York

Times, May 11, 2008.)

Betty Lu Salzman is the daughter of Philip Klutznick, who was Secretary of Commerce in the

final years of the Jimmy Carter regime. So it was evidently an old Carter network that gave the

anointed one his golden opportunity to go on record against Bush’s war.

A number of Obama critics have rightly stressed the pervasive role of Obama’s old SDS

networks in setting up this legendary rally. Steve Diamond, for example, writes: “…do not forget,

the Anti-war speech Obama gave in 2002, was organized by former terrorists of the SDS days, Carl

Davidson, Marylyn Katz and others!” And:

As it turns out, there are other ex-SDS types around the Obama campaign as well, including

Marilyn Katz, a public relations professional, who was head of security for the SDS during the

disaster in the streets of Chicago in 1968. She is close (politically) to Carl Davidson, a former

vice president of SDS and longtime Fidelista, who is webmaster for a group called Progressives

for Obama, that is headlined by other former 60s radicals like Tom Hayden and the maoist Bill

Fletcher. Davidson and Katz were key organizers of the 2002 anti-war demonstration where

Obama made public his opposition to the Iraq war that has been so critical to his successful

presidential campaign. Davidson apparently moved into the maoist movements of the 70s after

the disintegration of SDS.’ (Steve Diamond, ‘Who “sent” Obama?‘ globallabor.blogspot.com,

April 22, 2008)

Obama spoke before an undetermined number of persons, with aging SDS radicals from the

Ayers-Dohrn era setting the cultural tone. The following account is from the New York Times, and

must therefore be regarded with a dose of skepticism:

The rally was held on Oct. 2, 2002, in Federal Plaza before nearly 2,000 people.87 On the

podium before speaking, Mr. Obama joked about the dated nature of crowd-pleasing protest

songs like “Give Peace a Chance.” “Can’t they play something else? ” Ms. Saltzman recalled

his saying. The speech, friends say, was vintage Obama, a bold but nuanced message that has

become the touchstone of his presidential campaign: While he said the Iraq war would lead to

“an occupation of undetermined length with undetermined costs and undetermined

consequences,” he was also careful to emphasize that there were times when military

intervention was necessary. (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged on

the South Side,” New York Times, May 11, 2008.)

Obama’s careful hedging could not have been more evident, and this hint of duplicity was not

popular with the assembled crowd:

Obama’s refrain about supporting some wars perplexed some in the crowd. An event organizer,

Carl Davidson, recalled that a friend “nudged me and said, ‘Who does he think this speech is

for? It’s not for this crowd.’ I thought, ‘This guy’s got bigger fish to fry.’ At the time, though, I

was only thinking about the U.S. Senate.” (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic

Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York Times, May 11, 2008.)

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 227

OBAMA PATRON JAMES CROWN

OF GENERAL DYNAMICS AND J.P. MORGAN

Obama now began to receive more open support from the highest levels of the US ruling elite. It

will be recalled that Thomas Ayers had been a member of the board of directors of General

Dynamics. With the elder Ayers now ailing, Obama began to receive support from another member

of the General Dynamics board, the Chicago tycoon James Crown. James Crown is a close relative

of the late Colonel Henry Crown, who had become the majority stockholder in General Dynamics

back in 1959. Crown, currently one of Obama’s main backers, began giving the neophyte politician

advice:

As Mr. Obama moved closer to running, he paid a visit to James S. Crown and his father,

Lester, billionaire investors who presided over a sprawling Chicago business dynasty and

prominent leaders in the Jewish community. As the meeting ended, the younger Mr. Crown

said, his father — who is “fairly hawkish” about Israel’s security — was noncommittal about

Mr. Obama. But, James Crown said, “I pulled him down to my office, and I said, ‘Hey, look, I

think you should run, and I want you to win.’ (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic

Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York Times, May 11, 2008.)

OBAMA A PUPPET OF GENERAL DYNAMICS, MERCHANTS OF DEATH

The Crown family were a pillar of the US industrial-military-financier complex. As we read in

the open-source literature,

James S. Crown is … is president of Henry Crown and Company, a private investment

company. He is a director of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., General Dynamics and Sara Lee as well

as being the Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the University of Chicago. A member of

Chicago’s Crown family, James’ father is billionaire Lester Crown. He earned his BA from

Hampshire College in 1976 and his law degree from Stanford in 1980. It is believed his family

holds ownership in the following companies: CC Industries, Inc.; General Dynamics Corp.

(Resources Group); Material Service Corp.; Freeman United Coal Mining Co.; Freeman Energy

Corp.; Century-America LLC; Century Steel LLC; Tishman Speyer Crown Equities; Industrial

Insurance Agency, Inc.; Aspen Skiing Co. (Colorado); Citation Oil & Gas Corp.; Crown

Theatres, LP; Chicago Sweeteners, Inc.; Eltek, ASA; Great Dane Trailers L.P.; Van Vlissingen

& Co.; V & V Food Products, Inc.; Lakewood Homes, Inc.; Lennar Chicago; Crown Golf

Properties; Wireless One Network; Active Screw & Fastener, L.P.; Plasco, Inc.; Crown

Community Development; Ojai Resort Management (California); Bush Hog, LLC; Woodard,

LLC.88

The lesson is clear: Obama is anything but an insurgent; he is the carefully tended puppet of the

highest levels of finance capital and the military-industrial complex. Watch for General Dynamics

(currently the sixth largest defense contractor in the world) to take the inside track in Pentagon

contracts under a future Obama regime! Maybe Obama will decide that the US needs more nuclear

submarines, since that is the specialty of General Dynamics’ Electric Boat division.

THE CORRUPTION CROWN: A SWEETHEART MORTGAGE FOR THE OBAMAS

At the end of June 2008, a scandal emerged around the fact that Democratic senators had been

receiving sweetheart mortgages with extraordinarily low interest rates from lenders like the

228 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

infamous Angelo Mozillo of Countrywide bank. The first two Democratic senators involved were

Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Chris Dodd of Connecticut both of whom attempted to weasel

out of the charges. But then, at the beginning of July, it was revealed that the divine Barky had also

received a sweetheart mortgage when he bought the ostentatious mansion that his friend, convicted

felon Tony Rezko, had helped him to acquire. The Washington Post reported:

Shortly after joining the U.S. Senate and while enjoying a surge in income, Barack Obama

bought a $1.65 million restored Georgian mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. To

finance the purchase, he secured a $1.32 million loan from Northern Trust in Illinois. The

freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent

on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago.

The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a “super super jumbo.” Obama paid no

origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.

Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama’s rate could have

saved him more than $300 per month.’ Michelle and Barky had succumbed to the insatiable

greed which is typical of the parvenu in all places and in all ages, and does not vary according

to whether the oligarch in question is white, black, or some other color. The tastes of the man of

the people were revealed to be sybaritic: ‘The couple wanted to step up from their $415,000

condo. They chose a house with six bedrooms, four fireplaces, a four-car garage and 5 1/2

baths, including a double steam shower and a marble powder room. It had a wine cellar, a music

room, a library, a solarium, beveled glass doors and a granite-floored kitchen.’ (Joe Stephens,

“Obama Got Discount on Home Loan; Campaign Defends Lower Rate as Lender Competition

for Business,” Washington Post, July 2, 2008)

The question was now whether Northern Trust had given Obama the sweetheart rate because of

his honest face, or in the hope of building up chits that could be used to influence legislation later

on. A glance at the Board of Directors of Northern trust revealed the presence of none other than

Susan Crown, a close associate of her relative James Crown, whom we have already identified as

one of Obama’s most important backers and controllers. Susan Crown is the vice president of the

Crown family counting house, Henry Crown and Company, and has served on the Board of

Directors of Northern Trust since 1997. Susan Crown is an important oligarch in her own right: she

is also a trustee of Yale University.

OBAMA SELLS OUT MAYTAG WORKERS

The parasitical Crown family has played a major role in the demontage of the Maytag Corp.,

which was once one of the biggest appliance makers in the United States. To make the sweetheart

mortgage scandal even more outrageous, we must remember that Obama lent the Crown family in

the person of Lester Crown a helping hand by co-opting the protest of threatened Maytag workers

into his 2004 senate campaign, and, once he had their support, selling them down the river. This

particular stab in the back developed as follows:

Crown family members have been major donors to Obama’s campaigns, and serve on his elite

fundraisers group for his presidential campaign. Among the most disturbing stories of Obama’s

many efforts to give political and legislative advantages to the Crown family’s holdings, Senate

candidate Barack Obama promised Illinois’ Maytag workers he’d work to protect their jobs —

and took campaign donations from the beleaguered workers — but then met with Lester Crown,

on the board of directors of Maytag, to take his campaign donations. Crown later told the press

that Obama never raised the workers’ fate with him. The machinists lost their jobs to Maytag’s

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 229

Mexican plant. From [the] story, “Machinists’ Union TELLS It Like It Is,” quoting a must-read

article at TradingMarkets.com, “Obama’s fundraising, rhetoric collide: Union says senator did

little to save jobs.” Obama had a special connection to Maytag: Lester Crown, one of the

company’s directors and biggest investors whose family, records show, has raised tens of

thousands of dollars for Obama’s campaigns since 2003. But Crown says Obama never raised

the fate of the Galesburg plant with him. These are the ties that bind: The billionaire

industrialist Crown family’s board memberships with Exelon Corporation, Maytag Corporation,

and Northern Trust [and their close ties to] Barack Obama. Barack Obama plays the “populist”

routine in his campaign speeches, but he delivers to his billionaire benefactors, not the common

working stiffs who are losing their jobs and their homes. (susanunpc, noquarterusa.net, July 2,

2008)89

OBAMA’S LIMITLESS HYPOCRISY

Back in February 2008, susanunpc had called attention to Obama’s scandalous hypocrisy, which

had become an issue on the campaign trail, writing:

Machinists Union President Tom Buffenbarger, introducing Clinton, talks about Maytag. He

talks about the betrayal by Barack Obama, who only gave those Maytag workers a speech.

WORDS. Baloney. But then Obama collected huge sums from the Crown family of Chicago,

owners of Maytag who shipped those workers’ jobs out of the country.90 The Chicago Tribune

commented:

It is a ready applause line for the Illinois presidential hopeful, one that he has been reciting

almost verbatim since he was a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2004, when appliance giant Maytag

was in the process of shutting a refrigerator plant here, putting 1,600 people out of work. But

the union that represented most of those Galesburg workers isn’t impressed with Obama’s

advocacy and has endorsed his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. Its leaders say they wish he

had done more about their members’ plight. What rankles some is what Obama did not do even

as he expressed solidarity four years ago with workers mounting a desperate fight to save their

jobs. Obama had a special connection to Maytag: Lester Crown, one of the company’s directors

and biggest investors whose family, records show, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for

Obama’s campaigns since 2003. But Crown says Obama never raised the fate of the Galesburg

plant with him, and the billionaire industrialist insists any jawboning would have been futile.’91

OBAMA’S LEFT FLANK: ABUNIMAH, KHALIDI, AND RABBI WOLF

But at the same time that he was courting high finance and the military-industrial complex,

Obama was also at tentative to his left flank, and particularly to the interface between the US

intelligence community (to which Obama belongs under Executive Order 12333 thanks to his

foundation connections) and certain factions of the PLO:

For years, the Obamas had been regular dinner guests at the Hyde Park home of Rashid Khalidi,

a Middle East scholar at the University of Chicago and an adviser to the Palestinian delegation

to the 1990s peace talks. Mr. Khalidi said the talk would often turn to the Middle East, and he

talked with Mr. Obama about issues like living conditions in the occupied territories. In 2000,

the Khalidis held a fund-raiser for Mr. Obama during his Congressional campaign. Both Mr.

Khalidi and Mr. Abunimah, of the Electronic Intifada, said Mr. Obama had spoken at the fundraiser

and had called for the United States to adopt a more “evenhanded approach” to the

230 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Palestinian-Israel conflict. Still, Mr. Khalidi said ascertaining Mr. Obama’s precise position was

often difficult. “You may come away thinking, ‘Wow, he agrees with me,’” he said. “But later,

when you get home and think about it, you are not sure.” A.J. Wolf, a Hyde Park rabbi who is a

friend of Mr. Obama’s and has often invited Mr. Khalidi to speak at his synagogue, said Mr.

Obama had disappointed him by not being more assertive about the need for both Israel and the

Palestinians to move toward peace. “He’s played all those notes right for the Israel lobby,” said

Mr. Wolf, who is sometimes critical of Israel. … Mr. Abunimah has written of running into the

candidate around that time and has said that Mr. Obama told him: “I’m sorry I haven’t said

more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping that when

things calm down I can be more upfront.” The Obama camp has denied Mr. Abunimah’s

account. Mr. Khalidi, who is now the director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia

University, said, “I’m unhappy about the positions he’s taken, but I can’t say I’m terribly

disappointed.” He added: “People think he’s a saint. He’s not. He’s a politician.” (Jo Becker

and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York Times, May

11, 2008.)

BARUCH OBAMA, GENERAL DYNAMICS, AND RIGHT-WING JEWS

James Crown is reportedly very pleased with how Obama has handled himself since entering the

US Senate; Crown’s investment has paid off in spades:

Mr. Crown, for his part, could not be more pleased. Since Mr. Obama was elected to the Senate

Mr. Crown said that even his father had been won over, helping to arrange meetings for Mr.

Obama in a visit to Israel. James Crown said he had “never had even the slightest glimmer of

concern that Barack wasn’t terrific” on Israel — a view that Mr. Obama jokingly reinforced at a

meeting last year in Mr. Crown’s office. As Mr. Mikva recounted it, after discussing a

lukewarm response by more conservative Jews to some of Mr. Obama’s comments, “I turned to

Barack and said, ‘Your name could be Chaim Weizmann, the founder of the Jewish state, and

some of these Jewish Republicans wouldn’t vote for you.’” And, Mr. Mikva said, “He joked,

‘Well, you know my name is “Baruch” Obama.’ (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic

Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York Times, May 11, 2008.)

As he strove upwards, Obama jettisoned more and more of the trappings of a reform or anticorruption

Democrat and cultivated assiduously his ties to the notorious Chicago Democratic

machine:

…as Mr. Obama ascended to the larger stage, he also took the final step in his evolution from

Hyde Park independent to mainstream Chicago politician, establishing an overt alliance with

Mr. Daley. “Over the years, Senator Obama and I have been like-minded in most of the issues

facing Chicago,” the mayor said in a statement. His former chief of staff, Gary Chico, said the

mayor’s alliance with the senator was “based on mutual interest and what the mayor saw in the

man. They’re both pragmatic.” (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged

on the South Side,” New York Times, May 11, 2008.)

The shared pragmatism was clearly of the Nietzschean variety, the antinomian kind that says that

everything is allowed.

Each one of these maneuvers, expedient though it were in its own right, left behind some

disillusioned reformers and good government types who began to see through Obama’s

opportunism.

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 231

… Mr. Obama’s closer relationship with the mayor, coupled with some of his endorsements of

Democrats who championed the kind of patronage politics Mr. Obama had once denounced, left

some supporters feeling as though he was straying from his roots in the reform movement. Last

year, Mr. Mikva said he took Mr. Obama aside to complain about his endorsement of an

alderwoman [almost certainly the infamous racist Dorothy Tillman, whom the Chicago Sun-

Times describes as using historical involvement in slavery by companies and others to extort

payments to herself and her allies] who had supported Mr. Obama in his United States Senate

run and was the focus of newspaper reports about questionable spending on a $19.5 million

cultural center. Mr. Mikva said Mr. Obama’s response was simple: “Sometimes you pay your

debts.” Early last year, Mr. Obama endorsed Mr. Daley in his re-election bid, asserting that

Chicago had blossomed during his tenure. Mr. Miner, the mentor who had brought Mr. Obama

into his law firm in the early 1990s, said he remained an enthusiastic Obama supporter. But,

when it comes to some of Mr. Obama’s endorsements, “I don’t know who he’s listening to.” (Jo

Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side,” New York

Times, May 11, 2008.)

ACORN: FOUNDATION-FUNDED STORM TROOPERS

Another foundation-funded organization that strongly supports Obama is ACORN, a group

which uses real issues like poverty and low wages as pretexts to create gangs of goons and thugs

which are used to target entities various entities to which the foundations are hostile. ACORN is

reportedly heavily funded by such entities as the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation, two leftleaning

tentacles of the foundation world where Obama has personally served as a board member.

For many decades, as we have seen, the foundations have used the race issue as the hinge of a

divide-and-conquer strategy designed to – preserve the supremacy of Wall Street financiers in this

society. Now, as the economic depression deepens, it is clear that the foundations have deployed

ACORN as a means of seizing control of social ferment around issues like unemployment, low

wages, poor working conditions, and the like among a broader population, and one not limited by

race. ACORN resembles the old KPD, the communist party of Weimar Germany, which organized

unemployed workers into goon squads and street-fighting units. It also bears more than a passing

resemblance to Bob Avakian’s provocateur organization, the Maoist Revolutionary Communist

Party. ACORN has been specifically responsible for vote fraud actions, and is deeply implicated in

the goon squad operations that were such a prominent feature of Obama’s exclusion and

intimidation tactics during the 2008 caucuses. Right-wing critics of Obama have a hard time

understanding ACORN, since they cannot realize the validity and mass appeal of themes like a

living wage, the fight against predatory lending, and restoring the social safety net provided by the

Aid to Families with Dependent Children or general welfare provisions of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s

great Social Security Act of 1935. The reality is that, with the Democratic Party failing to act on

these vital questions, the field is open for their demagogic exploitation by foundation-funded gangs

like ACORN who will bring growing numbers of the poor and the jobless into action as expendable

shock troops and pawns under the control of ruthless demagogues loyal to the financier ruling class.

One observer comments on ACORN:

Obama’s most questionable tie is to a leftist organization called ACORN. His connection to this

group begins with a woman named Madeleine Talbot. She embraced Obama and taught him the

ropes. He remained a part of this group’s training cadre. Obama taught leadership conferences

for the group while working for Miner, Barnhill & Galland. His connections don’t end there.

Obama actively sought and received the endorsement by ACORN for the US presidency….

232 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

According to its web site ACORN (an acronym for Association of Community Organizations

for Reform Now), is the nation’s largest community organization of low- and moderate-income

families, working together for social justice and stronger communities. At first glance, this

organization seems to be benign. This is not true since it uses very aggressive tactics to get its

work done. … Some recent reports about their activities include the following things. They

have disrupted and blocked activities within the Chicago City Council during living wage

discussions. In Baltimore, MD, they burst into the scene of a private law dinner. They bussed

four loads of protesters to the site of a mayor’s house, where they spewed profanities at the

mayor and his family. And these are just the ones we know about. … These are not their only

questionable actions. In the past they have been tied to illegal voter registration in at least three

states. These three states are Washington, Missouri, and North Carolina. … In Missouri, the

voter fraud case was tied to at least one campaign, the senate campaign of Claire McCaskill….

In 2004, the Washington state Secretary of State described ACORN’s illegal activity as the

“largest case of voter fraud in the state’s history”…. They were fined $25,000 and promised to

instruct their paid canvassers on the state election requirements. In 2005, according to the

complaint filed with Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, the voter fraud involved the

registration of homeless people. ACORN agrees they break the law but said “no one told us”. In

2006, in Kansas City, MO, five low-level operatives were charged with voter fraud. Four

pleaded guilty, with the fifth person released because it came out that an ACORN worker had

stolen her identity. … Their national goals are municipal “living” wage laws, targeting big

companies like Costco, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks.

If ACORN attacks COSTCO, does that mean they are paid by Wal-Mart? But the heart of the

matter is this:

ACORN as well as other groups was the recipients of foundation money from both the Woods

Fund and Joyce Foundation. Why is this important? Obama sat on both boards. Through his

board positions, he was able to assist in the funneling of many millions of dollars in grant

money to various ultra-liberal organizations like Chicago’s ACORN.92

Despite what right-wingers may think, the real danger posed by ACORN is that of fascism, not

communism. If actual assault sections appear on the streets of America, ACORN may well be

prominently involved. Only broad-based New Deal economic policies can pull the rug out from

under demagogues like these by neutralizing the problems they exploit to recruit useful idiots for

the ruling elite.

THE BLACK AGENDA REPORT EXPOSES OBAMA

One of Obama’s sharpest critics over the past several years has been the distinguished black

journalist Glenn Ford, a writer of real integrity who has earned the high regard of readers of the

Black Commentator, and now of the Black Agenda Report. Ford’s work on Obama allows us to

view the senator through the eyes of a black activist who over the years has fought consistently for

the real interests of the black community in the broadest sense, as distinct from the personal

ambitions of individual members of the black overclass. As a result, Ford has been very tough on

the members of the Congressional Black Caucus in particular. Ford tells the fascinating story of

how he first began to notice Obama’s tendency towards opportunism, specifically on the question of

Obama’s early support from the Democratic Leadership Council, the notorious nest of right-wing

Democrats who were always determined to appease the Republicans in every way possible, no

matter what the cost:

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 233

Although close friends and confidants had been talking up a run for national office since the

early 1990s, Barack Obama in 2003 was still an Illinois state senator running in the Democratic

primary for the U.S. Senate. This reporter, a longtime and former Chicago community and

political organizer, had worked with Obama in 1992’s highly successful Project VOTE Illinois

registration drive. After moving to Georgia in 2000, I managed to keep in touch with events at

home, and was well aware of Obama’s run for the US Senate. While researching a story on the

Democratic Leadership Council for the internet magazine Black Commentator in April and May

of 2003, I ran across the DLC’s “100 to Watch” list for 2003, in which Barack Obama was

prominently featured as one of the DLC’s favorite “rising stars.” This was ominous news

because the DLC was and still is the right wing’s Trojan Horse inside the Democratic party.

The DLC exists to guarantee that wealthy individuals and corporations who make large

campaign donations have more say in the Democratic Party than do flesh and blood Democratic

voters. The DLC achieves this by closely examining and questioning the records, the policy

stands and the persons of officeholders and candidates to ensure that they are safe and worthy

recipients of elite largesse. The DLC also supplies them with right-wing policy advisers

beholden to those same interests, and hooks up approved candidates with the big money donors.

Then as now, the DLC favors bigger military budgets and more imperial wars, wholesale

privatization of government functions including social security, and in so-called “free trade”

agreements like NAFTA which are actually investor rights agreements. Evidently, the giant

insurance companies, the airlines, oil companies, Wall Street, military contractors and others

had closely examined and vetted Barack Obama and found him pleasing. (Glenn Ford, “How

We Held Obama’s Feet to the Fire in 2003,” The Black Agenda Report)

OBAMA “THE WAR HO” –

“A LIAR OF THE FIRST ORDER” – “WE MUST REJECT HIM”

In a later article, Ford elaborated: ‘The Senator from Illinois masquerades as a “peace candidate”

– and then proposes the Americans invade Pakistan, the only Muslim nation that has The Bomb. …

Obama wants to invade Pakistan, the most dangerous place in the world. Obama wants to add

almost one-hundred thousand new troops to the U.S. military.’ Ford went on to quote a recent

speech by Obama: ‘“My plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda

within Iraq,” Obama told the fat cats at the Woodrow Wilson Center. In other words, he is not about

to get out of Iraq. Barack Obama is a liar of the first order. Obama masks himself as a peace

candidate, but he is really a son of war. He carries the “White Man’s Burden,” proudly. He will

carry us into a suicidal conflict, with relish. We must reject him.’ (Glenn Ford, “Barack Obama

Ain’t Nothin’ But a War Ho’,” Black Agenda Report)93

Glenn Ford proceeded to demolish the Obama mystique in a systematic refutation:

The 2008 Obama presidential run may be the most slickly orchestrated marketing machine in

memory. That’s not a good thing. Marketing is not even distantly related to democracy or civic

empowerment. Marketing is about creating emotional, even irrational bonds between your

product and your target audience. From its Bloody Sunday 2007 proclamation that Obama was

the second coming of Joshua to its nationally televised kickoff at Abe Lincoln’s tomb to the

tens of millions of dollars in breathless free media coverage lavished on it by the establishment

media, the campaign’s deft manipulation of hopeful themes and emotionally potent symbols has

led many to impute their own cherished views to Obama, whether he endorses them or not. To

cite the most obvious example, the Obama campaign cynically bills itself as “the movement”,

234 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

the continuation and fulfillment of Dr. King’s legacy. But the speeches of its candidate carefully

limit the application of all his troop withdrawal statements to “combat troops” and “combat

brigades,” omitting the six figure number of armed mercenary contractors in Iraq, along with

“training,” “counterinsurgency” and other kinds of troops. Obama also presses for an expansion

of the US Army and Marines by more than 100,000 troops and a larger military budget even

than the Bush regime. The fact that both these stands fly in the face of the legacy of Martin

Luther King, and flatly contradict the wishes of most Democratic voters is utterly invisible in

the establishment media, and in the discourse of established Black leaders on the Obama

campaign. The average voter is ill-equipped to read Obama’s statements on these and other

issues as closely as one might read a predatory loan application or a jacked up insurance policy,

trying to determine exactly what is covered. As we pointed out back in December: The Obama

campaign is heavy on symbolism, and long on vague catch phrases like “new leadership,” “new

ideas,” “a politics of hope,” and “let’s dream America again” calculated to appeal to millions of

disaffected Americans without actually meaning much of anything. Corporate media actively

bill Obama as “the candidate of hope,” and anointed representative of the “Joshua generation.”

There are good reasons campaign placards at Obama rallies say “change we can believe in”

instead of “stop the war - vote Obama” or “repeal NAFTA - Barack in ‘08.” The first set of

messages are hopeful and vague. The second are popular demands among the voters Obama

needs, against which his past, present and future performance may be checked. When the

comparison is made, the results are dismaying to many who want to support Barack Obama.94

2003: OBAMA DEEP SIXES HIS OWN 2002 ANTI-WAR SPEECH

As part of his research into Obama, Glenn Ford looked at the senator’s website and found that

Obama had gone silent on any opposition to the Iraq war, which at this point in 2003 seem to have

been decisively won. Ford tells us that he

revisited Obama’s primary election campaign web site, something I had not done for a month or

two. To my dismay I found the 2002 antiwar speech, the same one which Barack Obama touts

to this day as evidence of his antiwar backbone and prescience, which had been prominently

featured before, had vanished from his web site, along with all other evidence that Obama had

ever taken a plain-spoken stand against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. With the president

riding high in the polls, and Illinois’ Black and antiwar vote safely in his pocket, Obama

appeared to be running away from his opposition to the war, and from the Democratic party’s

base. Free, at last. After calls to Obama’s campaign office yielded no satisfactory answers, we

published an article in the June 5, 2003 issue of Black Commentator effectively calling Barack

Obama out. We drew attention to the disappearance of any indication that U.S. Senate candidate

Obama opposed the Iraq war at all from his web site and public statements. We noted with

consternation that the Democratic Leadership Council, the right-wing Trojan Horse inside the

Democratic party, had apparently vetted and approved Obama, naming him as one of its “100 to

Watch” that season. This is what real journalists are supposed to do - fact check candidates,

investigate the facts, tell the truth to audiences and hold the little clay feet of politicians and

corporations to the fire. Facing the possible erosion of his base among progressive Democrats in

Illinois, Obama contacted us. We printed his response in Black Commentator’s June 19 issue

and queried the candidate on three “bright line” issues that clearly distinguish between

corporate-funded DLC Democrats and authentic progressives. We concluded the dialog by

printing Obama’s response on June 26, 2003. For the convenience of our readers in 2007, all

three of these articles can be found here. It was our June 2003 exchange with candidate Obama

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 235

that prompted him to restore the antiwar speech on his web site, though not as prominently as

before, the same antiwar speech which is now touted as evidence of his early and consistent

opposition to the war. Our three “bright line” questions invited him to distinguish himself as an

authentic progressive on single-payer national health care, on the war in Iraq, and on NAFTA.

And it was our public exposure of the fact and implications of the DLC’s embrace of Obama’s

career which caused him to explicitly renounce any formal ties with the Democratic Leadership

Council. We didn’t do it because we were haters. We were doing our duty as agitators. (Glenn

Ford, “How We Held Obama’s Feet to the Fire in 2003,” The Black Agenda Report) 95

In the fall of 2006, accompanied by the leading black journalists Bruce Dixon, Margaret

Kimberley and Leutisha Sills of CBC Monitor, Glenn Ford left the Black Commentator which he

had co-founded and edited since 2002, and launched Black Agenda Report. The Black Commentator

continued under Bill Fletcher as executive editor. Fletcher is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for

Policy Studies, an important focus of the left wing of the US intelligence community, and the

immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum, a group linked with reparations advocate Randall

Robinson. It would appear that the issue of provoking this split was specifically whether or not to

support Obama for the presidency. Glenn Ford, for his part, has continued to maintain a critical

stance in regard to the Illinois Senator, while Fletcher has gone as far as the traffic will bear in the

direction of backing Obama. Here is Fletcher’s recent quasi-endorsement of Obama:

My conclusion, and I offer this with great caution, is that critical support for Obama is the

correct approach to take. Yet this really does mean critical support. It means, among other

things, that Senator Obama needs to be challenged on his views regarding the Middle East; he

must be pushed beyond his relatively pale position on Cuba to denounce the blockade; he must

be pushed to advance a genuinely progressive view on the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast and the

right of return for the Katrina evacuees; and he must be pushed to support single payer

healthcare. As I emphasized in an earlier commentary, it is up to the grassroots to keep the

candidates honest. Silence, in the name of unity, is a recipe for betrayal. What we have to keep

in mind is something very simple: the other side, i.e., the political Right, always keeps the

pressure on. If we do not pressure, in fact, if we do not demand, the reality is that the Right will

come out on top. To do the right thing, we must assess and appreciate Senator Obama for who

he is and what he is - politically - rather than engage in wishful thinking. To do anything else is

to be disingenuous to our friends and our base. Senator Obama, if elected President, will be

unlikely to reveal himself to have been a closeted progressive. Yet, with pressure from the base,

he may be compelled to do some of what is needed, despite himself and despite pressures to the

contrary. (Bill Fletcher, Jr., The Black Commentator)

OBAMA IN 2004: BOMB IRAN – AND PAKISTAN

Already in the 2004 Senate race, Obama displayed the incongruous and bizarre combination of

nominal opposition to the Iraq war, while explicitly recommending a much wider regional

conflagration involving Iran and Pakistan, amounting essentially to the beginnings of a new world

war. Obama expounded his war plans to the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune in late

September 2004:

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might

have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting

control of nuclear bombs. Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain

nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the

236 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That

pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said. But if those measures fall

short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in

Iran, Obama said. “The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures,

including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what

point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked. Given the

continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes

might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain

relations between the U.S. and the Arab world. “In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with

all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching

some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said. “On the other

hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess

my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics

of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has

evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.” As for Pakistan, Obama said that if

President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might

have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses.

Musharraf’s troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani

tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations. Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are

a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be

treated differently. “With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a

model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to

be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain,” Obama said. “I think there

are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same

calculations. “… I think there are elements within Pakistan right now–if Musharraf is

overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those

bombs out, because I don’t think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate

risks.” (David Mendell, “Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran,” Chicago Tribune,

September 25, 2004)

These remarks are a foreshadowing of Obama’s call in the July 2007 Democratic candidates’

debate in Chicago for US bombing raids to be conducted on a unilateral basis in northern Pakistan,

without consultation of the Musharraf government, and thus wantonly violating the national

sovereignty of a very large and very proud nation which happens to possess nuclear weapons. At

that time, Clinton, McCain, and even Bush had rejected this demand on various grounds, but by

January 2008 Obama’s demand for the reckless and unilateral US bombing of Pakistan had become

a reality, as reported by the Washington Post and other published sources. Naturally, Obama’s

motion had passed thanks to the ascendancy inside the US government of the Zbigniew Brzezinski

faction, as whose puppet Obama functions. But in September 2004, even the Chicago Tribune could

see that there was something strange about being a dove on Iraq and a hawk on the two larger

countries further east:

Obama’s willingness to consider additional military action in the Middle East comes despite his

early and vocal opposition to the Iraq war. Obama, however, also has stressed that he is not

averse to using military action as a last resort, although he believes that President Bush did not

make that case for the Iraq invasion… (David Mendell, “Obama would consider missile strikes

on Iran,” Chicago Tribune, September 25, 2004)

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 237

US SENATE: THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY

AND THE ELIMINATION OF BLAIR HULL

We must now attempt to explain how the mediocre and relatively obscure Obama was able to

force his way into the United States Senate in 2004 against other candidates who were better

known, better qualified, and better financed. Once again, Trilateral magic will play a central role.

Most accounts of this Senate race are purely fantastic, and try to explain Obama’s unlikely victory

as a product of some astute machinations by the anointed one. Here is an example from a

meretricious journalist whose notoriously slimy methods became a focus of attention during the

Spring 2008 primaries:

…the [Illinois] Senate race was crowded, dominated by two independently wealthy newcomers

to politics: on the Democratic side, Blair Hull, a former securities trader who had made his first

stake playing blackjack and pumped $29 million of his own money into the race, and for the

Republicans, Jack Ryan, a former Goldman Sachs investment banker who had made a fortune

and then spent time as a teacher in an inner-city Catholic school. Another Democratic contender

was the state controller, Dan Hynes, from an old Chicago political family, who figured to have

strong labor and organization support. But Obama had his own ace: Emil Jones, whose support

had the effect of tying the hands of Mayor Richard Daley and Governor Rod Blagojevich. “He

knew if he had me in the run for the Senate, it would put a block on the current mayor,” Jones

recalled. “The current mayor and the father of the controller, which was Dan Hynes, they were

roommates in Springfield when the mayor was a state senator, so they had a relationship.

Another big financial backer for the governor was Blair Hull. Barack knew if he had me it

would checkmate the governor, ‘cause the governor couldn’t come out and go with Blair Hull,

‘cause the governor needs me. Same with the mayor. So he had analyzed and figured all of that

out. He knew I could help him with labor support. And I could put a checkmate on some of the

local politicians that didn’t know him, but they couldn’t really go against me. It was just like in

a football game: you got this talented running back, but without those linemen opening the

holes and blocking, the running back would never get out of the backfield.” Obama secured the

nomination and in November 2004 won election to the Senate. (Todd Purdum, Vanity Fair,

March 2008)

This is the journalism of pure hallucination. The account given is absolutely fraudulent, and

makes no mention whatever of the decisive factors that determined the outcome of this Senate race:

these were two huge scandals which, with perfect timing, came out of nowhere and destroyed

Obama’s most formidable opponents in the Democratic primary, Marson Blair Hull, and then —

once again with perfect timing — brought down Jack Ryan, Obama’s Republican opponent in the

November election. The New York Times account was a little better, but still left out the main

things:

If freshman senators arrive as celebrities, it is usually because they are “dragon slayers,” having

ousted big-name incumbents. Mr. Obama was not one of those; two serious opponents in

Illinois self-destructed, smoothing his path to election in November 2004. (New York Times,

March 9, 2008)

What these establishment writers are trying to hide is the fact that Obama has never won election

to public office in a truly contested election. The 2004 Illinois Senate race confirms this adage,

since Obama faced no serious opposition in the Democratic primary or in the general election, since

his most formidable opponents had been knocked out by piloted scandals.

238 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

BARKY’S FIRST FOE: MARSON BLAIR HULL, OPTIONS MILLIONAIRE

The most dangerous opponent for Obama was Blair Hull, usually considered the richest person

to have ever run for statewide office in Illinois. Hull’s financial resources, accumulated during a

career as an investment banker with Goldman Sachs, were unusually formidable, and Hull was also

determined to avoid the rich man’s fallacy that everything necessary for a campaign can simply be

bought with money, whereas in reality there are some things that political organizing alone can

accomplish. As we read in an Internet source,

…in early polls leading up to the March 16, 2004, primary election, candidate Blair Hull

enjoyed a substantial lead and widespread name recognition resulting from a well-financed

advertisement effort. He contributed over $28 million of his personal wealth to the campaign.

However, Hull was soon embroiled by allegations of domestic abuse. Marson Blair Hull, Jr.

(born September 3, 1942), commonly known as Blair Hull, is an American businessman and

politician, notable for his attempt to win the Democratic Party nomination to serve in the United

States Senate from Illinois in 2004. He is the founder and CEO of the Hull Group, an equity

option market making firm that was sold to Goldman Sachs. He is currently chairman and chief

executive officer of Matlock Capital a family office. In early media polls leading up to the

March 16, 2004 primary election, Hull enjoyed a substantial lead and widespread name

recognition resulting from a well-financed advertisement effort. He contributed over $28

million of his personal wealth for the campaign. When allegations that Hull had abused his exwife

were made by the media, Hull’s poll numbers dropped and he failed to win the nomination.

Illinois State Senator Barack Obama later became the nominee. Challenger Barack Obama, an

Illinois state senator, won endorsements from four Illinois congressmen and former DNC

chairman David Wilhelm, increasing his name recognition among voters. In the final weeks of

the campaign, Obama’s primary campaign gathered support from favorable media coverage and

an advertising campaign designed by David Axelrod. The ads featured images of U.S. Senator

Paul M. Simon and the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington; the support of Simon’s

daughter; and the endorsement of most of the state’s major papers, including the Chicago

Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. In the March primary, Obama won a majority of support,

earning 52% of the vote, fueled by an overwhelming victory in Cook County, including

Chicago. (Wikipedia on Blair Hull)96

This account captures certain features of the reality of what went on, but it stops at the

superficial level of phenomenon and is unable to explain anything in terms of causation.

THE ATLANTIC PROFILES HULL:

SELF-FINANCED CANDIDATES ARE VULNERABLE TO SCANDALS

We can begin to understand the surprising fall of Blair Hull more adequately once we recognize

that Hull’s campaign had been extensively observed and profiled over a period of months by a

number of journalists and operatives linked to institutions that would later emerge as key centers of

support for Obama. The most egregious example is that of the Atlantic Monthly, in many ways the

flagship magazine of the Boston and New York banking establishment in the same way that the

New York Times is their newspaper of record. The Atlantic Monthly became one of the first house

organs of pro-Obama hysteria in December 2007, with an adulatory cover story celebrating the

Perfect Master by neocon Andrew Sullivan. One suspects that the Atlantic Monthly has cultivated a

benevolent interest in the career of Obama going back several decades, as several other financier

institutions had. In any case, by the spring of 2004 the Atlantic Monthly had assigned an

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 239

investigative journalist to the task of profiling the hapless Blair Hull. Here is some of what this

operation unearthed:

Blair Hull can afford to be cavalier about a senator’s $158,000 salary, because he is the richest

person ever to seek office in Illinois. He has a larger staff than any of his competitors. He pays his

staffers more than any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates pay theirs. And there is a very

good chance that he will spend more just on Illinois’s March 16 Democratic primary than all but

one or two of the Democratic presidential hopefuls will spend nationwide throughout the campaign.

When I joined him for a few days in November, Hull was in the midst of the most expensive

campaign in Illinois history, having pledged to spend as much as $40 million in pursuit of the seat

being vacated by the Republican Peter Fitzgerald. Hull’s has all the trappings of a state-of-the-art

campaign: meetups, a blog, and a timeshare in a corporate jet, not to mention a red, white, and blue

“Hull-on-Wheels” RV that is featured prominently in his television commercials and has become a

rolling symbol of the campaign. And at least in theory Hull, who is sixty-one, is a formidable

candidate: as a former high school teacher, union worker, and board member of NARAL, he

appeals to important Democratic constituencies; as the lone veteran in the field, he can oppose the

war in Iraq unquestioned. His unusual life story, too, sets Hull apart from the drab lawyers, state

representatives, and political scions who normally pursue office in Illinois, though in fact he is less

flamboyant than his campaign and personal history suggest.

Trained in mathematics and computer science, Hull became part of a notorious card-counting

ring that operated in Nevada in the 1970s. … Hull always expected future gain. As if to

underscore his analytical rigor, he used his winnings to found Hull Trading Co., a computerized

options firm that earned him $340 million—and the means to run for the Senate—when

Goldman Sachs bought it, in 1999. … But Hull’s campaign does demonstrate a shrewd

understanding of what it takes to buy a Senate seat. In the past few years Corzine and Warner

(this time running for Virginia governor) got elected, laying out a strategy that Hull’s campaign

has largely adopted. Unlike Checchi and Huffington, Corzine went beyond television

advertising to build his base of support. “Any self-funded candidate who relies on mass media

to carry his message in the absence of creating a warm and lasting connection with voters is

going to lose,” Steve DeMicco, who managed Corzine’s campaign, warns. Corzine courted key

state officials and built an intricate grassroots network well in advance of the election.

(Hundreds of thousands of dollars in charitable donations to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH

Coalition and similar organizations didn’t hurt either.) And he largely resisted the urge to

overrule his advisers, though he did refuse the suggestion that he shave his beard. “For the most

part,” DeMicco says, “he knew what he didn’t know.” Hull, too, has assiduously cultivated the

grass roots—particularly downstate, where he is counting on outperforming his Chicago-based

competitors in the primary. Given that at least six other candidates are vying for the Democratic

nomination, the winner should need only 25 to 30 percent of the vote. Though the millions Hull

has spent to date have yet to make him the front-runner, his campaign is showing reasonable

progress in the difficult task of turning a virtual unknown into a serious prospect for the state’s

12 million citizens. Hull has already campaigned full time for more than a year, blanketing the

state with television ads, joining parades in the “Hull-on-Wheels” RV, and giving endless talks

in small towns similar to Orland Hills. Like other candidates, Hull supports drug re-importation

from Canada. He recently took a bus trip to Windsor, Ontario, with seniors who were buying

prescription drugs. Unlike other candidates, he paid for the bus, the hotel rooms, and even the

doctors’ visits. And just as Corzine did, he has spent an astonishing amount of money courting

240 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

state officials—donating to Rod Blagojevich’s successful 2002 campaign for governor of

Illinois, for instance, a total of $459,000 in loans, cash, and the use of his jet.

It turns out that Hull is that rare breed of candidate who will give an honest assessment of his

chances. “At the outset,” he told me, “I estimated there was about a ten percent probability” of

winning. But by the time he was six months into his campaign, Hull’s name recognition and

poll support had risen to the point where, he said, “it is clearly above that—and rising.” He

emphasized his continued willingness to bet millions of dollars that he can win. Hull is most

animated by those aspects of campaigning that can be quantified and formulated. “Politics is

very unpredictable,” he told me. “More so than blackjack.” When Elliott Close, a South

Carolina textile heir, ran for the Senate in 1996, his consultants thought it politically unwise for

him to drive a fancy foreign car. Close dutifully swapped it for a Cadillac. Not long afterward

he was ticketed for speeding, and a subsequent newspaper account emphasized his expensive

choice of automobile. Exasperated, Close bought a Buick and was said to carry the newspaper

clipping in his wallet for the remainder of the campaign. Other examples are not quite as

harmless. The Republican businessman Michael Huffington’s Senate campaign in California, in

1994, featured a get-tough-on-immigration platform unveiled in the final weeks of the

campaign. A few days after the announcement the Los Angeles Times reported that Huffington

employed an illegal alien as a nanny. Like Close, Huffington lost his election.

Nevertheless, there is compelling evidence that Illinois voters will accept a candidate who

draws on his own fortune to run for office. They have already elected one: Peter Fitzgerald, who

in 1998 spent $14 million of his personal fortune of $40 million to win the seat Hull wants. But

after Hull started campaigning, Fitzgerald announced that he would not seek re-election.

Spending part of a fortune to become a senator was one thing; going through the rest of it to

remain one, apparently, was another.

The central finding of the profile, perhaps suggesting what would come next, was this:

Self-financed candidates are usually facing media scrutiny for the first time. They are therefore

more susceptible to damaging revelations: a drunk-driving arrest, a history of domestic

violence, an illegal nanny. This reality can be daunting. (Joshua Green, “Blair Hull thinks he

has found the formula for how to buy a Senate seat A Gambling Man,” Atlantic Monthly,

February 2004) 97

As it turned out, the Obama machine could do better than a nanny. They would tar Hull with

domestic violence and threatening to kill his own wife.

HULL FALLS VICTIM TO AXELROD'S DIVORCE PAPERS GAMBIT

Blair Hull’s world began to get turned upside down when a group of Chicago media apparently

led by Axelrod’s network at the reactionary and neocon Chicago Tribune began demanding that the

sealed court papers regarding the divorce which had ended Blair Hull’s marriage be revealed to the

public. This procedure was highly irregular, since proceedings in Family Court are not

automatically open to the public, because of the interest of the minor children. But these mere

technicalities did not stop the Chicago Tribune, aided and prodded, as it was later learned, by the

Obama campaign and quite possibly by the anointed one himself. When the papers were finally

opened, they were an unmitigated disaster for poor Marson Blair Hull, including a physical beating

and a death threat. Things had reached such a level of intensity between Hull and his wife that she

had to ask for a special protective order to keep the allegedly violent husband away. Naturally,

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 241

these charges were all made ex parte by Hull’s wife, and therefore are not necessarily true at all.

However, they were just the thing that the Trilateral doctors ordered for the anemic campaign of

Obama. Here is a sampling of one journalistic account:

The divorce filings reveal a highly volatile relationship between a couple who were married and

divorced twice within four years. In the second divorce, the proceedings became so bitter that

each party hired a private investigator to look into the other’s life, the divorce filings show.

Before his first marriage to Sexton, Hull had been married for 29 years to another woman with

whom he had four children. For her part, Sexton, 49, alleged a pattern of emotional and mental

abuse by Hull. On March 12, 1998, she asked a Cook County Circuit Court judge to issue an

order of protection against Hull, in part, because she alleged Hull had threatened her life. “I am

in great fear that if this court does not enter a protective order in my favor and against Blair, as

well as exclude him from my residence in which I am residing with my child ... Blair will

continue to inflict mental, emotional and physical abuse upon me as he has done in the past,”

Sexton alleged to obtain a court order to keep Hull away from her. “At this point, I fear for my

emotional and physical well-being, as well as that of my daughter.” Sexton outlined several

incidents in which she accused Hull of becoming violent, profane and verbally abusive. During

one, she alleged that he “hung on the canopy bar of my bed, leered at me and stated, ‘Do you

want to die? I am going to kill you....’” Only once, however, did she accuse him of striking her,

which led to his arrest. But authorities declined to press charges against Hull because they

determined that “mutual combat” had occurred. Hull said he struck Sexton’s shin in retaliation

after she allegedly kicked him. A Cook County prosecutor “felt she would be unable to sustain

a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt” in the battery case, according to the divorce

filing. But just days after she asked for the protective order, the couple reached a settlement

agreement giving her $3 million and half the value of their North Side home. And despite her

allegations of abusive behavior by Hull, Sexton agreed to allow the protective order to expire

when the marriage was dissolved in court months later. (David Mendell, “Hull’s ex-wife called

him violent man in divorce file,” Chicago Tribune, February 28, 2004)

HULL CRUSHED BY TRILATERAL SCANDAL MACHINE

The impact of these revelations on the hapless Hull’s campaign can be likened to that of a

thermonuclear explosion. Here is an assessment of the state of Hull’s campaign on March 19, 2004

which stresses the collapse of

… Blair Hull’s extravagant quest for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. Hull’s

campaign followed a trajectory more dramatic than Howard Dean’s, with big leads in the polls

preceding what the Chicago Tribune called “the most inglorious campaign implosion in Illinois

political history.” Hull finished a distant third in Tuesday’s voting, with barely 10% of the vote.

His campaign was financed, lavishly, from the personal fortune Hull made as the founder of an

options firm he sold to Goldman Sachs for $340 million in 1999. Hull spent at least $29 million

on the campaign; the Tribune estimates he paid $260 for each vote he received. Hull’s undoing

was a story that broke less than a month before the primary. His ex-wife had sought an order of

protection against him during their divorce in 1998. Hull tried to keep the divorce records

sealed, but pressure from journalists and opposing candidates forced him to release them. The

papers revealed that his ex-wife alleged that Hull had threatened her life, and that a physical

altercation between them had led to his arrest for battery, though no charges were filed. An

established politician with a reputation and a track record might have survived such publicity.

But Hull was a political novice. Not only had he never run for office before 2004, he hadn’t

242 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

bothered to vote for years at time. An article by Joshua Green on Hull, which appeared in the

Atlantic Monthly as his candidacy was cresting, was prescient: “Self-financed candidates are

usually facing media scrutiny for the first time. They are therefore more susceptible to

damaging revelations: a drunk-driving arrest, a history of domestic violence, an illegal nanny.”

The ubiquitous Hull television ads had given him far better name recognition than his obscure

opponents. But the footage of him chartering a bus to take Illinois senior citizens to Canada for

cheaper prescription drugs than they could buy in the U.S. did him no good once the divorce

story broke. Voters now knew one thing about Hull that didn’t come from his ads, and it made

even the least credulous suspect that the virtues and earnestness on display in the paid spots

were contrived. After the divorce story broke, Blair Hull posted a message on his campaign

website: “If voters want to judge me solely on the basis of my divorce, I’m willing to allow the

chips to fall where they may. However, what voters tell me they want this election to be about is

who has the independence to make health care more affordable, drive down the costs of

prescription drugs, get our economy moving and create jobs.” Jay Gatsby realized, finally, that

none of those people at his parties were his friends—they were just there for the food, the drinks

and the thrills. Blair Hull now knows that only a few of those earnest voters who spoke to him

were really interested in his gold-plated policy seminar. They wanted a tabloid story, and he

became it. (William Voegeli, “The Rise and Fall of Blair Hull,” The Claremont Institute, March

19, 2004)98

Note once again that the demolition of Hull followed the guidelines suggested by the profile in

the Atlantic Monthly, which is today one of the temples of the Obama cult.

OBAMA’S CAMPAIGN “WORKED AGGRESSIVELY” TO SMEAR BLAIR HULL

As the 2004 Senate primary neared, it was clear that it was a contest between two people: the

millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls, and Obama, who had built an impressive

grass-roots campaign. About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the

bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for

an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal

that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The

Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama

camp had ‘worked aggressively behind the scenes’ to push the story.99 (emphasis added)100

Even with the support of this profiling and scandal machine, Obama was only able to eke out

52.77% of the primary vote in a crowded field. The Obama campaign was deeply implicated in the

mudslinging.

THE ELIMINATION OF JACK RYAN

Now Obama had to face the Republican candidate, who was yet another multimillionaire, this

time with a glamorous actress wife who had been a star of the television series Star Trek. A

standard Internet reference work gives the following account of what followed:

Obama was then pitted against Jack Ryan, the winner of the Republican primary. Ryan

campaigned in favor of across-the-board tax cuts, school choice, and tort reform, an effort to

limit payout in medical malpractice lawsuits. Ryan spent his childhood in Wilmette, Illinois,

with his five siblings, and attended New Trier High School. He graduated from high school in

1977 and went on to Dartmouth College, where he graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 243

Kappa. He earned his MBA from Harvard Business School, and his JD from Harvard Law

School. After this, he worked for Goldman Sachs as an investment banker and eventual partner,

first in New York City, and then in the Chicago branch. Ryan married actress Jeri Ryan in

1991; together they have a son, Alex Ryan. They divorced in 1999 in California, and the

records of the divorce were sealed at their mutual request. Five years later, when Ryan’s Senate

campaign began, the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought

to have the records released. Both Ryan and his wife agreed to make their divorce records

public, but not make the custody records public, claiming that the custody records could be

harmful to their son if released. On June 22, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert

Schnider agreed to release the custody files. In those files, Jeri Ryan alleged that Jack Ryan had

taken her to sex clubs in several cities, intending for them to have sex in public. The decision to

release these files generated much controversy because it went against both parents’ direct

request and because it reversed the earlier decision to seal the papers in the best interest of the

child.101

This time around, Obama assumed a stance of Pecksniffian hypocrisy, deploring that such

scabrous and salacious material was coming up in a political campaign. ‘“I don’t think it’s an

appropriate topic for debate,” Obama said. Obama has consistently said that his campaign would

not focus on Ryan’s 1999 divorce from TV actress Jeri Ryan.’ (Chicago Sun-Times, April 3, 2004)

OBAMA AND THE ART OF PORNOGRAPHIC CAMPAIGNING

The usual suspects from among Axelrod’s pals at the Chicago Tribune intervened actively on

Obama’s behalf to dig up as much dirt as they could about Jack Ryan. Since divorce is now so

prevalent, it is perhaps not a big surprise that Obama’s journalistic myrmidons chose the tactic of

attempting to open up court papers from Ryan’s ugly divorce from the famous Star Trek actress Jeri

Ryan:

As the campaign progressed, a lawsuit brought by the Chicago Tribune and ABC-owned station

WLS-TV led to a California court’s opening of child custody files from Ryan’s divorce with

actress Jeri Ryan. In those files, she alleged that he had taken her to sex clubs in several cities,

intending for them to have sex in public. Although the sensational nature made the revelations

fodder for tabloid and television programs specializing in such stories, the files were also

newsworthy because Ryan had insisted to Republican leaders that there was nothing damaging

in them. As a result, many Republicans questioned Ryan’s integrity following the release, and

he dropped out of the race on June 25, 2004, leaving Obama without an opponent. (Wikipedia

on Jack Ryan)102

The stunning blow for Jack Ryan came on June 22, 2004 when, contrary to most legal precedent,

the divorce papers were opened and published before a candid world. An account from the gotcha

website The Smoking Gun describes the impact of these revelations on Ryan, who had tried to

portray himself as a family values conservative against the cosmopolitan and Bohemian Obama:

In what may prove a crippling blow to his U.S. Senate campaign, divorce records reveal that

Illinois Republican Jack Ryan was accused by his former wife, actress Jeri Ryan, of pressuring

her to have sex at swinger’s clubs in New York, Paris, and New Orleans while other patrons

watched. The bombshell allegation is contained amidst nearly 400 pages of records ordered

released yesterday by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge who ruled on media requests to

unseal documents from the Ryan case. The salacious charge leveled at the politician was made

by Jeri Ryan, who has starred in TV’s “Star Trek: Voyager” and “Boston Public,” in a court

244 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

filing in connection with child custody proceedings…. The performer alleged that she refused

Ryan’s requests for public sex during the excursions, which included a trip to a New York club

“with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling.” While Ryan, a former

Goldman Sachs executive, confirmed the trips with the actress, he described them simply as

“romantic getaways,” denying her claims that he sought public sex. The politician has

repeatedly claimed that his divorce file – portions of which were sealed in 2000 and 2001 –

contained no embarrassing information that would harm his chances against Democratic

nominee Barack Obama. The Ryans were married in 1991 and, in November 1998, Jeri Ryan

filed for divorce citing “irreconcilable differences.” Another unsealed document reveals that

Jeri Ryan, as part of the divorce settlement, received about $20 million in Goldman Sachs stock,

while Jack Ryan retained a $40 million stake in the investment giant.103

RYAN FREQUENTED “A BIZARRE CLUB WITH CAGES,

WHIPS, AND OTHER APPARATUS”

Here are some excerpts from the unusually prurient statements of Jeri Ryan about her former

husband’s penchant for dragging her into sex clubs:

“They were long weekends, supposed ‘romantic’ getaways,” Jeri Ryan said in the filing. “The

clubs in New York and Paris were explicit sex clubs. Respondent had done research.

Respondent took me to two clubs in New York during the day. One club I refused to go in. It

had mattresses in cubicles. The other club he insisted I go to.” In her 2000 filing, Jeri Ryan

alleged that after she and Jack Ryan left the first sex club they entered in New York, he asked

her to go to another. She said he told her that he had gone out to dinner with her that night even

though he didn’t want to and “the least I could do in return was go to the club he wanted me to

go.” She described the second place as “a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus

hanging from the ceiling.” “Respondent wanted me to have sex with him there with another

couple watching. I refused,” Jeri Ryan continued. “Respondent asked me to perform a sexual

activity upon him and he specifically asked other people to watch. I was very upset. “We left

the club and respondent apologized, said that I was right and he would never insist that I go to a

club again. He promised it was out of his system.” “Then during a trip to Paris, he took me to a

sex club in Paris, without telling me where we were going. I told him I thought it was out of his

system. I told him he had promised me would never go. People were having sex everywhere. I

cried, I was physically ill. Respondent became very upset with me, and said it was not a ‘turn

on’ for me to cry.” (AP, June 22, 2004) 104 Ryan could only counter weakly that “We did go to

one avant garde nightclub in Paris which was more than either one of us felt comfortable with.”

With the tabloids full of these sensational accounts, Jack Ryan’s Republican allies began to run

away from him about as fast as they ran away from Mark Foley two years later.

After the records were made public, Congressman Ray LaHood of the 18th District immediately

called on Ryan to drop out of the race. By June 25, Dennis Hastert, another prominent Illinois

Republican (and the House Speaker) had “made some calls,” according to anonymous sources

reported in the Daily Southtown, and the consensus was for Ryan to step aside. The Southtown

newspaper also reported that Ryan was expected to step aside. Some commentators pointed out

that the information contained in the files involved private matters between a husband and wife

and should not have been grounds for the destruction of Ryan’s campaign. Others pointed out

that the allegations were never proven, and in fact, Ryan was awarded additional custody rights

at the end of the hearing, suggesting the allegations were not deemed reliable by the judge.

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 245

Ryan trailed Obama in early polls, with Obama opening up a 20-point lead after the media

reported that Ryan had assigned Justin Warfel, a Ryan campaign worker, to track Obama’s

appearances. Warfel followed Obama’s movements 24 hours a day, recording everything

Obama did in public on videotape. Warfel also heckled Obama by yelling questions at him in

public. Ryan eventually withdrew Warfel, but did not apologize. (Wikipedia on Ryan)105

THE CARPETBAG CAMPAIGN OF ALAN KEYES OF MARYLAND

It was now late June, and the Illinois Republican Party no longer had a credible candidate for the

United States Senate. At this point, given the typical Republican mentality and voter base, it would

have been natural for the Illinois Republicans to do the obvious thing and pick the best financed,

best known white candidate they could find in order to at least cut their losses. The normal

Republican reasoning would be that since Obama is black, a white candidate would automatically

acquire support from backlash voters, especially those in the rural areas of downstate Illinois. A

white candidate was the obvious choice. There was absolutely no reason to go far afield to recruit a

black candidate yet for some inexplicable (and probably Trilateral) reason, this is what the Illinois

Republicans did. Perhaps, after two of Obama’s opponents had been knocked out by perfectly timed

scandals, the Illinois GOP had detected the hand of Divine Providence and concluded that Obama’s

entry into the US Senate was now divinely ordained. Otherwise, there is no explanation of what the

Illinois Republicans did next. They went all the way to Maryland to recruit Alan Keyes, a former

State Department official under Reagan, a failed Senate candidate in his own state of Maryland, and

a former Republican presidential candidate who was widely thought to have run for the White

House in order to increase the standard fee he could demand for making lectures in front of groups

of reactionary students on college campuses. Keyes was a widely known windbag and buffoon, and

by making the trip from Maryland all the way to Illinois he compounded his problems by adding

carpetbagger and interloper to the list of epithets ready to be hurled against him.

In August 2004, with less than three months to go before election day, Alan Keyes accepted the

Illinois Republican Party’s nomination to replace Ryan. A long-time resident of Maryland,

Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination. Through three televised

debates, Obama and Keyes expressed opposing views on stem cell research, abortion, gun

control, school vouchers, and tax cuts. In the November 2004 general election, Obama received

70% of the vote to Keyes’s 27%, the largest electoral victory in Illinois history. (Wikipedia)106

Obama had received an important boost from Laurance S. Rockefeller, a senior member of the

Rockefeller family, in the form of some very generous contributions to Axelrod and some issue ads

designed to favor Obama’s Malthusian party line. Laurance, along with David, was one of the

surviving members of the Rockefeller brothers’ generation, the sons of John D. Rockefeller Junior.

Laurance died at the age of 94 in July 2004, so the Obama campaign was one of his last projects.107

OBAMA’S VOLKSGEMEINSCHAFT SPEECH

AT THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION

In the midst of these events, Obama was chosen by the party hacks and Wall Street operatives

who control the Democratic Party to deliver the keynote address of the 2004 Democratic national

convention in Boston, Massachusetts. This was an unmistakable symbol of the fact that Obama had

a support network that went far beyond the confines of the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine: it

reached to Wall Street and beyond. In an instant, the obscure mediocrity Obama became a national

and indeed international celebrity, and the Chicago Democratic wheel horses with whom he had

246 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

been rubbing shoulders in the various clubhouses of the South Side for a decade and more were

stunned to see the forces that were now promoting Barky’s meteoric career.

When Mr. Obama delivered a now-famous speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention

that catapulted him onto the national stage, sitting in the audience was Mayor Daley of Chicago.

As Mr. Obama spoke, Mr. Daley and other Illinois officials “were just as wide-eyed as the

thousands of convention goers,” said James A. DeLeo, a Democratic leader in the Illinois

Senate. The mayor and the senator had some ties, but they had never had a close relationship.

Mr. Obama’s friend Ms. Jarrett had worked for Mr. Daley, and had hired Michelle Obama into

the administration in the early 1990s. Yet Mr. Obama had run multiple times as a candidate

without the mayor’s help. (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the

South Side,” New York Times, May 11, 2008.)

Obama’s Boston keynote address of 2004 represents essentially the same speech that he has been

giving ever since: a tissue of patriotic clichés changed by New Age sensibilities, an oblique polemic

against the Lee Atwater-Karl Rove use of wedge issues by the Republican party, and above all a

cascade of vapid messianic slogans and Utopian rhetorical figures. The great overarching theme

was the mystical unity of the American nation and people. Obama’s oration had not a scintilla of

originality. It was a standard Democratic Party corporatist speech in the Volksgemeinschaft tradition

– the (at best) communitarian idea that the mystical unity of The People magically dispels all real

conflicts of interest, also a staple of the fascist rejection of class conflict. Congresswoman Barbara

Jordan at the 1976 Democratic National Convention had played the Volksgemeinschaft card against

Nixon and Ford. Jordan had intoned on that occasion:

This is the question which must be answered in 1976: Are we to be one people bound together

by common spirit, sharing in a common endeavor; or will we become a divided nation? For all

of its uncertainty, we cannot flee the future. We must not become the “New Puritans” and reject

our society. We must address and master the future together. It can be done if we restore the

belief that we share a sense of national community, that we share a common national endeavor.

It can be done.

This speech had doubtless been written for Ms. Jordan by the Trilateral managers who ran both

Jimmy Carter and the 1976 convention. Some of the rhetorical devices are actually echoed in

Obama’s boilerplate rhetoric.

“My story is part of the larger American story,” Obama pontificated in a performance that the

controlled corporate media uniformly touted as electrifying and inspirational. “In no other country

on Earth is my story even possible.” “We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t

like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states,” he said. “We coach Little League

in the blue states, and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who

opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all

of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”

Here again was the mystical unity of the nation, a staple of standard fascist rhetoric.

THE APOTHEOSIS OF A MEGALOMANIAC

In the standard Roman triumphs, the victorious general returning to receive the tumultuous

accolades of the Senate and people was also provided with a slave whose job it was to keep

repeating that he was only mortal and that all glory was fleeting; this was a kind of Roman

preventive care lest megalomania ensue from too much adulation. Obama has always needed an

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 247

entire staff to try to keep his characteristic megalomania under control. In an instant, Obama had

leapt from relative obscurity to bask in the klieg lights of DC fame, and it was all going straight to

his head:

Obama’s good friend Martin Nesbitt, a successful black businessman in Chicago, spent the day

of the speech with him, traveling from appearance to appearance. “We were walking down the

street in Boston, and this crowd was growing behind us, kind of like Tiger Woods at the

Masters. And I turned to Barack and I said, ‘This is incredible. You’re like a rock star.’ And he

looked at me and said, ‘If you think it’s bad today, wait till tomorrow.’ And I said, ‘What do

you mean?’ and he said, ‘My speech is pretty good.’ ” It was an extraordinary display of selfconfidence,

and self-knowledge. (Purdum, Vanity Fair, March 2008)

We would rather call it an extraordinary display of megalomania on the part of a person who

somehow believes that magical oratory can automatically be used to produce concrete effects in the

real world — not a very healthy frame of mind for anyone, much less a president who will always

have to fight to get the bureaucracy to do anything at all. In the November 2004 general election,

Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes’s 27%, the largest electoral victory in Illinois history.

Obama became only the third African-American elected to the U.S. Senate since Reconstruction,

after Edward Brooke of Massachusetts and Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois. We can expect Obama

to undergo acute bouts of megalomania if he should ever get the Democratic nomination, to say

nothing of the Nero-style performance he will put on if he should ever reach the White House. God

help us.

IN THE US SENATE: TACKING RIGHT WITH LUGAR

Despite the underlying megalomania, Obama has also developed a certain limited capacity to

display a self-deprecating humor. One example:

Senator Barack Obama stood before Washington’s elite at the spring dinner of the storied

Gridiron Club. In self-parody, he ticked off his accomplishments, little more than a year after

arriving in town. “I’ve been very blessed,” Mr. Obama told the crowd assembled in March

2006. “Keynote speaker at the Democratic convention. The cover of Newsweek. My book made

the best-seller list. I just won a Grammy for reading it on tape. “Really, what else is there to

do?” he said, his smile now broad. “Well, I guess I could pass a law or something.” … He was

running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors. “I think it’s very

possible to have a Senate career here that is not particularly useful,” he said in an interview,

reflecting on his first year. And it would be better for his political prospects not to become a

Senate insider, which could saddle him with the kind of voting record that has tripped up so

many senators who would be president. “It’s sort of logic turned on its head, but it really is

true,” said Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the former senator and Democratic leader who has

been a close adviser to Mr. Obama.’ (New York Times, March 9, 2008)

Obama appears to be preparing to go one step further in the departure from reality which the

neocons have thus far so nobly advanced: in the bizarro world of Obama, no experience is better

than vast experience, and no track record is far better than a voluminous track record, since only

perceptions, and never reality are involved. Unfortunately for Obama, this is just not the way the

world works.

248 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

THE HOPE POPE CREATES THE HOPEFUND

And then there were the kudos, the accolades which showered down on the anointed head:

Shortly after Obama’s swearing in, his beatification begins when Time magazine names Obama

one of “The World’s Most Influential People.” He is listed among other leaders and

revolutionaries. This same year, the British journal New Statesman names Obama one of “10

People Who Could Change the World.” After he was on the cover of Newsweek the same week

President Bush appeared as Time’s Man of the Year, his fellow Democratic senators gently

ribbed him at their first weekly luncheon of the new Congress. His memoir was on The New

York Times’ best-seller list for 54 weeks. And Washington society was eager to embrace him —

a Capitol Hill newspaper ranked him as No. 2 on its list of most beautiful people. Mr. Obama

was also pulling in big money. He created a political action committee, the Hopefund, to

increase his visibility and help other Democrats, and it raised $1.8 million the first year. He

disappointed some Democrats by not taking a more prominent role opposing the war — he

voted against a troop withdrawal proposal by Senators John Kerry and Russ Feingold in June

2006, arguing that a firm date for withdrawal would hamstring diplomats and military

commanders in the field. His most important accomplishment was his push for ethics reform.

Party leaders named him their point person in 2006, and when the Democrats assumed the

majority in Congress in January 2007, Mr. Obama and Mr. Feingold, a longtime Democratic

proponent of ethics reform, proposed curtailing meals and gifts from lobbyists, restricting the

use of corporate planes, requiring lobbyists who bundle donations to disclose individual

donors… “He folded like a cheap suit,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South

Carolina and a close ally of Mr. McCain. “What it showed me is you are not an agent of change.

Because to really change things in this place you have to get beat up now and then.” (New York

Times, March 9, 2008)

Obama’s betrayal of the Kerry-Feingold bill of mid-2006 is by itself enough to make his claim

of consistent opposition to the Iraq war into a bitter mockery, but the Kool-Aid drinkers and

lemming legions who support his cultist candidacy are epistemologically incapable of seeing

this simple fact.

TOM DASCHLE, THE SENATOR FROM CITIBANK

As soon as Obama got to Washington, he immediately began recruiting a staff of classic

powerbrokers and influence peddlers.

Obama was sworn in as a senator on January 4, 2005. Although a newcomer to Washington, he

recruited a team of established, high-level advisers devoted to broad themes that exceeded the

usual requirements of an incoming first-term senator. Obama hired Pete Rouse, a 30-year

veteran of national politics and former chief of staff to Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle,

as his chief of staff, and economist Karen Kornbluh, former deputy chief of staff to Secretary of

the Treasury Robert Rubin, as his policy director. His key foreign policy advisers include

Samantha Power, author on human rights and genocide, and former Clinton administration

officials Anthony Lake and Susan Rice. Obama holds assignments on the Senate Committees

for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and

Governmental Affairs; and Veterans’ Affairs, and he is a member of the Congressional Black

Caucus. The U.S. Senate Historical Office lists him as the fifth African-American Senator in

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 249

U.S. history, the third to have been popularly elected, and the only African-American currently

serving in the Senate.’ (Wikipedia entry on Obama)108

Especially sinister is the presence of Tom Daschle, notorious as the senator from Citibank,

which happens to be one of the largest employers in the state of South Dakota because of the

presence of some of its back-office facilities there. Daschle embodies in the cringing appeasement

and milquetoast opposition which was typical of the Democratic Party during Bush’s first term. He

lost his seat to the upstart Thune because of his numerous betrayals and he is now attempting to

reinvent himself thanks to the Hope Meister.

STRIPPING THE RUSSIAN NUCLEAR DETERRENT WITH DICK LUGAR

Naturally, everybody in Washington is in favor of stripping away as much of the Russian nuclear

deterrent as can be managed, so this was a very noncontroversial choice for Obama, and happened

by some coincidence to also coincide perfectly with the anti-Russian priorities of his longtime

mentor and controller, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Soon after he was sworn into office on January 4,

2005, Obama partnered with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana to craft a bill that attempted

to undermine the Russian deterrent under the pretext of destroying weapons of mass destruction in

Eastern Europe and Russia. The choice of the reactionary Lugar was significant, since this is a

figure whom Obama is known to be considering either for the vice presidency or for a post like

secretary of state.

Lugar was one of Obama’s first mentors in the Senate, and was at that time the chairman of the

Foreign Relations Committee. Lugar later invited Obama on a trip through the former Soviet

Union, inspecting projects to decommission Cold War-era weapons. The two joined hands to

pass legislation to control the spread of weapons. “I like him, and I appreciate working with

him,” Lugar said. “It seems to me that he was adept in finding partners and coalitions and

actually was able to achieve results.” In addition to a legislative accomplishment teaming with

Lugar, the partnership gave Obama the added credibility he sought in an association across

party lines. A former presidential candidate who has seen many fellow senators launch White

House bids during his 30-year Senate career, Lugar offers unusually strong praise for Obama.

“He does have a sense of idealism and principled leadership, a vision of the future,” Lugar said.

“At certain points in history, certain people are the ones that are most likely to have the vision

or imagination or be able to identify talent and to manage other people’s ideas. And I think he

does this well.” (New York Times, March 9, 2008)

AUSTERITY FANATIC TOM COBURN AND WARMONGER JOE LIEBERMAN

Obama also gravitated to another notorious reactionary, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of

Oklahoma, with whom he created a website that tracks all federal spending. Radical right-wingers

were intrigued by Obama’s ability to camouflage proposals for brutal austerity and savage cuts in

the standard of living under the fatuous cloud of utopian babbling. By now, these reactionaries also

had a pretty good idea that Obama was a candidate with a glass jaw, and much less formidable in

the 2008 election than Senator Clinton would be.

“…nobody should imagine that the right-wing media whose voices now praise Obama will

continue to do so if he wins the Democratic nomination, or that the mainstream media, which

still takes so many cues from the right, will do likewise.” This article also talks about Obama’s

“free ride” that I have been talking about for the longest time along with his “mentor”

250 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

relationship to Joe Lieberman: “Should Obama hope to continue to enjoy his free ride, he

should consult his old mentor Joe Lieberman, the senator from Connecticut who used to be a

Democrat. Conservative commentators and right-wing media outlets always loved Lieberman

for his willingness to echo their talking points on subjects such as school vouchers and Social

Security privatization.” And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to

Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by antiwar

candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called

Lieberman “his mentor” and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions

to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called “Bush’s closest

Democratic ally on the Iraq War.” Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the

war? (Matt Gonzalez, “The Obama Craze,” Counterpunch)

Obama’s antics during his first months in Washington, DC before he left the Senate to go on the

presidential campaign trail give us some idea of what he means by bipartisan cooperation, which is

a blanket capitulation to reactionaries on virtually every issue, especially the economic ones.

Observers were astounded or a poll:

When Obama first got to Washington, he wanted to be a wonk, to keep his head down and

concentrate on small issues. “The plan was: Put Illinois first,” one of his aides tells me. Obama

himself admits that his initial agenda had a “self-conscious” modesty. His early legislative

accomplishments have been useful and bipartisan — he has even sponsored bills with

ultraconservative Sen. Tom Coburn, who believes that high school bathrooms breed lesbianism

— but they have been small-scale and off the headlines: a plan to make it easier for citizens to

find out about government spending, increased research into ethanol, more job training and tax

credits for “responsible fathers.” This is the kind of head-down diligence that plays well in the

Senate. “I am amazed by his sheer stamina,” says Sen. Dick Lugar, a Republican from Indiana

who has become something of a mentor to Obama. 109

Now even poor Tom Coburn has been thrown under the bus by Obama as a result of the

Philadelphia debate in which the anointed one cited Coburn as an example of a right-wing extremist

who wanted the death penalty for abortions as part of a rhetorical trick to seemingly balance his

decades-long friendship with the Weatherman terrorist bomber Bill Ayers. Obama’s concept of

friendship is clearly a very ephemeral one.

RECTOR OBAMA SNIFFS AT “THE MANUEVERINGS,

THE CHICANERY, THE SMALLNESS” OF THE US SENATE

Fundamentally, Obama is an apolitical and anti-political candidate who is opposed to a form of

government in which economic questions are decided primarily by the give and take and haggling

inherent in the parliamentary and legislative processes. Obama thinks that these decisions ought to

be made by bankers speaking among themselves in the measured tones of the corporate boardroom.

His entire campaign therefore has a decidedly anti-parliamentary thrust, a characteristic that it

shares with the early Italian fascism of Mussolini between 1919 in 1922. The Duce once described

the Italian parliament as a cattle pen, and his contempt for parliamentary methods was always

flagrant. Obama offers the same attitude in a somewhat laid-back postmodern or new age form, but

it is the same attitude, as we can see from this:

…Washington has plenty of wonks, and Obama wasn’t going to distinguish himself through

diligence alone. He came to the Capitol equipped with his own, swelling celebrity; the Senate

was not a perfect fit. Beyond his considerable charm, Obama can be righteous and cocky. He

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 251

came to Washington pushing the hope that politics could be better — but now he can give the

impression that he’d rather be just about anywhere other than in Washington. “It can be

incredibly frustrating,” he tells me. “The maneuverings, the chicanery, the smallness of politics

here.” Listening to a bloviating colleague at his first meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee, Obama slipped a three-word note to a member of his staff: “Shoot. Me. Now.” On a

recent day, as Obama made his way through the Capitol’s corridors, his fellow senators seemed

like good-natured sportscasters, jolly and easy with their power, bantering about the fortunes of

baseball teams in their home states... Obama is aloof and quiet. He prefers to listen, attentive as

a rector, not quite of this world, silently measuring it. “The typical politician pushes himself on

people to get them to pay attention,” says Frank Luntz, the Republican campaign strategist.

“Obama is quieter. He doesn’t push — he has a laid-back feel that pulls you in. That is so rare.”

(Wallace Wells, “Destiny’s Child,” Rolling Stone, February 27, 2007)

But no matter what the issue, Obama will always take any opportunity he is offered to

pontificate, lecture, hector, and talk down to his interlocutors:

The lesson the senator took from the meeting, he says, was this: “Politics is not a sport. The

debates we have in Washington are not about tactical advantages. They are about who we are as

people, what we believe in and what we are willing to do to make sure we have a country that

our children deserve.” Afterward, he signs autographs in the crowd for what seems like hours:

He can’t, he won’t, get away. (Wallace Wells, “Destiny’s Child,” Rolling Stone, February 27,

2007)

US SENATE: MEDDLING IN KENYAN DESTABILIZATION NECKLACING

As part of Obama’s efforts to demonstrate his continuing usefulness to Zbigniew Brzezinski and

the rest of the Rockefeller-Trilateral policy faction as they strive to reject the Chinese from Africa

and thus cut off the flow of African oil, raw materials, and minerals to the Middle Kingdom, Obama

— puffed up by his new senatorial dignity — now undertook a second roots trip back to Kenya.

This time it was no longer a matter of discovering inconvenient truths about his father and the rest

of his relatives; it was now a matter of documenting his ability to help destabilize Kenya with the

help of his murderous cousin, the Anglo-American provocateur Ryan Odinga: During Obama’s trip

to Kenya in August 2006, he openly meddled in tribal politics against the majority Kikuyu ethnic

group, which controlled the government, and in favor of his own Luo tribe, which had become

identified to some extent with the cause of Islam. It must be stressed that the motivation for Obama

as illegitimate interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state was not dictated by religious

considerations, but had everything to do with the desire of the Zbigniew Brzezinski faction of the

US elite to overthrow the Kenyan government because it was open to cooperation with the People’s

Republic of China, which Brzezinski is targeting in the first phase of his final apocalyptic assault on

Russia. Under the Brzezinski strategy, all of Africa is to become a battlefield between the United

States and the Chinese, with the goal of denying Beijing access to oil, minerals, and other strategic

raw materials. Obama made his meddling so blatant and so obvious that the existing Kenyan

government labeled him in blunt terms as a “stooge” for the Luo-based and US-backed opposition

forces, who were led by his cousin, the murderous Raila Odinga. (Mike Flannery, “[Kenyan]

Government Says Obama is a Stooge for Political Opposition,” CBS2.com, August 2006)

252 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

KENYAN GOVERNMENT: OBAMA “A STOOGE”

Seeing Obama’s eagerness to meddle and interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign and

independent African states, some African leaders already began to understand what breed of cat this

Obama what is. As one right-wing Internet site comments,

There are signs of tension between Sen. Barack Obama and African leaders. On Monday,

Obama stepped up his criticism of government corruption in Kenya. At the University of

Nairobi, the senator offered more pointed criticism, something he’s done almost every day since

arriving last week. After remaining largely silent, the government of President Mwai Kibaki is

beginning to respond, suggesting that Obama may have fallen under the spell of opposition

leader Raila Odinga, Obama’s cousin. Odinga is the son of Senior’s sister, a direct first cousin

and nephew of Obama’s father. A potential presidential candidate himself, Odinga’s been at

Obama’s elbow here fairly often and is a member of the Obama family’s Luo tribe. “Sen.

Obama has to look at critically about where he’s receiving his advice from,” said government

spokesman Dr. Alfred Mutua. “Just because somebody, somewhere wants to run for president

and is using Sen. Obama as his stooge, as his puppet to be able to get to where he wants to get

to.” Raila Odinga, who is Obama’s first cousin, has, in his own words, a “close personal

friendship” with Obama. When Obama went to Kenya in August of 2006, he was hosted by

Raila and spoke in praise of him at several rallies in Nairobi…. When Raila Odinga lost the

presidential election to Mwai Kibaki, he claimed the vote was rigged, whereupon his tribal

followers went on murderous rampages, such as in the town of Eldoret, where on New Years’

Day dozens of Christians were burned to death in a church set on fire. Throughout Kenya,

hundreds of people have been politically murdered in the last few days.110

The problem is that the American people can have no conceivable interest in taking sides in the

conflict between the Luo and the Kikuyu; the American interest is to maintain mutually beneficial

relations with the government of a peaceful and united Kenya which is making forward progress in

its own national economic development.

THE CIA’S LUO-ISLAM ALLIANCE WRECKS KENYA

Right-wing websites and called attention to the fact that the Odinga-Luo party inclines towards

the Islamic political movements in Kenya. This may presently be the case, but no one should

mistake the underlying strategy, which is that the Kenyan government must be destroyed because it

is willing to conclude development accords with the People’s Republic of China. Odinga is not a

Moslem jihadi; when traveling overseas, he is in practice a CIA asset. Nevertheless, the details of

these operations show how cynically the Christian populations of Africa are being sacrificed by

Brzezinski in the service of his obsessive anti-Chinese and anti-Russian designs. We find on the

Internet that, for example,

the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya has posted on its website a photograph copy of a

Memorandum of Understanding, dated and signed on August 29, 2007, between Raila Odinga

and Shiekh Abdullah Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya. Here is

a summary on the agreement which was signed: It pledges the support of Kenyan Moslems for

Raila’s election. In return, as President of Kenya, Raila agrees to 14 actions, listed a) through n)

on page two. Within 6 months re-write the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the

only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions. Within one year

facilitate the establishment of a Shariah court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters. (Note:

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 253

everywhere in Kenya, not just in “Muslim declared regions.”) Popularize Islam, the only true

religion… by ordering every primary school in Kenya in the regions to conduct daily Madrassa

classes. Impose a total ban on open-air gospel crusades by worshippers of the cross… Outlaw

gospel programs… on KBC, the National Broadcaster. Impose a total ban on the public

consumption of alcoholic beverages…Impose an immediate ban on women’s public dressing

styles that are considered immoral and offensive to the Muslim faith…111

OBAMA’S COUSIN ODINGA: NECKLACING IN THE FAMILY AND THE TRIBE

There is little doubt that Raila Odinga is no champion of either democracy or Islam, but rather a

brutal and power-hungry thug who happens to have hitched his wagon to US-British imperialism.

One observer writes that

Obama’s involvement in Kenyan politics, whether tribal or religious, is bothersome. On January

2nd, in classic Marxist tradition, Obama’s Kenyan 1st cousin, Raila Odinga, accused President

Mwai Kibaki of stealing the Dec. 27 election, and rallied his Luo followers in western Kenya,

demanding a new election. Kibaki “must step down or there must be a re-election — in this I

will not be compromised. You cannot steal my cow, and I catch you red-handed, and then

expect me to share the milk because the cow is mine.” More than 1,000 people, mostly Kikuyu

Christians, have been killed and 300,000 forced from their homes by Odinga’s followers.112

To some this may look like Marxism, but the method is that of the classical National

Endowment for Democracy people power coup or color revolution. An interesting side light to all

this is that “Raila Odinga named his daughter after Winnie Mandela, who championed the act of

necklacing – murdering an opponent by putting a burning rubber tire around his neck — in South

Africa some years back. His son is named for Fidel Castro.”113

BRZEZINSKI: KICK THE CHINESE OUT OF AFRICA

The calculation being made by Brzezinski and other diehard defenders of US-UK world

domination is that the novelty of Obama’s black face can be used to refurbish their own image to

the point where a counteroffensive against the Chinese in Africa will become possible in the short

run. Think first of George Bush attempting to convince African leaders that they should join in the

campaign of London and Washington to impose economic sanctions on Zimbabwe, because —

irony of ironies — Bush is offended by the alleged fact that Mugabe uses vote fraud to maintain his

hold on power! Clearly, Bush’s chances of prevailing in such requests would be minimal. But now

imagine that it is Barack Hussein Obama who is making the appeal to the African states to join in

the latest imperialist campaign. Now, the imperialist chances, although still low, have decidedly

improved. Obama went to Africa in large part to show that he could appeal directly to the African

masses, but once again the inherent professorial elitism and pedantry of this haughty Luo got in the

way. Here is a first-person account:

In late August, for the third time in his life, he traveled to Kogelo, the tiny, grassless village in

western Kenya where his father had grown up the son of a Muslim goat herder and where the

senator’s grandmother still lives. There is something absurd about the collision of Obama’s

worlds, right now, dozens of microphones thrust in the face of this eighty-five-year-old woman

who has spent her life in this amazingly obscure place and barely knows her grandson. But this

is part of the Obama legend, the globalized Abe Lincoln: This is his log cabin, a generation

removed. When his caravan pulls into the village, thousands of people are waiting for him, a

254 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

vast and disciplined crowd standing in long, silent lines, like those old photos of British

colonials reviewing the Zulus. They are rooting for him to say something big, something

feeling, about Africa, about the relation between America and Kenya, about the way history is

beginning to shift. Obama, instead, backs away. “I don’t come here as a grandson but as a U.S.

senator,” he tells them. “My time is not my own. Don’t expect me to come back here very

often.” And then again: “I’m not going to be here all the time.” He goes on in this vein: He

wants to help Kenyans, but he also wants them to help themselves. He begins to sound like any

other politician, a deputy to the trade commissioner. The crowd, full of hope, almost visibly

deflates. (Wallace Wells, “Destiny’s Child,” Rolling Stone, February 27, 2007)

Not a very promising beginning, but also perhaps a fair reflection of the predicament of Anglo-

American imperialism in Africa today.

GETTING RICH IN THE MILLIONAIRE’S CLUB

Obama and his wife are trying to cultivate the public image of an anti-materialist power couple

were urging young people to choose the path of idealism and not pecuniary aggrandizement. This is

a public relations ploy doubtless invented by Axelrod, and it is a cruel sham. One of Obama’s first

preoccupations upon arriving in the Senate was how to begin amassing wealth into a considerable

fortune as soon as he could:

Less than two months after ascending to the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama bought more than

$50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of

his biggest political donors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to

develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its

shares, Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.

He also bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose

principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his

political committees. A spokesman for Obama says the senator did not know that he had

invested in either company.114

The perfect Master was too much involved in his idealistic meditations to ever think about all

that filthy lucre he was amassing by means of classical graft.

OBAMA REFUSES TO HELP END THE IRAQ WAR

Obama’s elusive October 2002 antiwar speech has remained for many years an isolated and

impotent gesture, clearly conceived and executed as part of a cynical marketing strategy as a means

of jumpstarting Barky’s Senate campaign by mobilizing a brigade old SDS leftists. in 2005 in

2006, Bush could count on Obama as a reliable vote in favor of the continued funding of the Iraq

war and against impeachment, which by late 2006 had become a genuine mass movement,

especially in the middle class. Even Obama’s allies in the controlled corporate media began to take

notice of his duplicity:

Campaigning for the Illinois Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama scolded Bush for invading

Iraq and vowed he would “unequivocally” vote against an additional $87 billion to pay for it.

Yet since taking office in January 2005, he has voted for four separate war appropriations,

totaling more than $300 billion. Last June [2006], Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry’s

proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an “arbitrary

deadline” could “compound” the Bush administration’s mistake. And now he’s voted for a

Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 255

Iraq. He left it to others to lead public opinion. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Rep. John

Murtha (D-Pa.) emerged as the strongest voices against the war. Those critics all spoke out

before Obama gave his first major policy speech on the war — 11 months after he took office.’

(Chicago Tribune, June 12, 2007)

JULY 2004: “NOT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE”

BETWEEN BUSH AND OBAMA ON IRAQ

In July of 2004, Obama, replied to a question about his differences with Bush regime regarding

the Iraq war with this: “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I

don’t know.” He added: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George

Bush’s position at this stage.” (“Meet the Press,” 2004, MyDD, Nov. 11, 2007) The senator himself

tries to portray his many pro-war votes as being the result of his recognition of the nuanced

complexity of the situation in Iraq, rather than as the cynical sellouts that they are:

Obama defended his reluctance to call for withdrawal during most of his first year in the Senate.

“At the time, my view was that the [Iraqi] government was still forming and it would be

important to not give the impression, prior to the formation of that government, that we were

already on the way out,” Obama said. “Now, what changed? We have the breaking out of a

complete civil war, at least a significant low-grade civil war.” Feingold offers Obama mixed

reviews for his handling of Iraq. “I’ve been pleased that his opposition has intensified over

time. I was not that happy with his initial opposition to a timeline,” Feingold said. (Chicago

Tribune, June 12, 2007)

NADERITE MATT GONZALEZ: OBAMA FAILS ON THE ISSUES

Matt Gonzalez is a former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is currently

(2008) running on Ralph Nader’s ticket as a vice presidential candidate. Before declaring his

candidacy, he contributed an excellent overview of Obama on the issues. The first thing that

Gonzalez notices is the point we have just been stressing, namely that Obama’s self-portrait as a

consistent and reliable antiwar vote is, to use President Clinton’s term, a “fairy tale.” Generally

speaking, Obama is running away from his own voting record as fast as his legs will carry him,

preferring to pose as the purveyor of hope and change in the most vacuous and generic terms.

Gonzalez notes:

Let’s start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at

best. First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was

running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest,

he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There’s not that much

difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my

mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” The Tribune went on to say that Obama, “now believes

US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation a policy not dissimilar to the current

approach of the Bush administration.” Obama’s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing

occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn’t he have taken the

opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to

conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate

and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he’s done just that. Since taking

office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have

put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary

256 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various false justifications for

going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of “Operation Iraqi

Liberation” the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his

colleagues who voted against her confirmation. (Matt Gonzalez, “The Obama Craze,”

Counterpunch) 115

Then there is the little matter of civil liberties, where Obama is actually looking more and more

like a crypto-totalitarian. In any case, it is certain that Obama was a supporter of renewal of the

Patriot Act in midsummer 2005, a time when anti-Bush sentiment was clearly the wave of the

future: “Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil

liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under

the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.” (Matt Gonzalez, “The Obama Craze,” Counterpunch)

Now, in the 2008 primary season, we have had another cycle of promises and betrayals inflicted

on us by Obama, who strutted as an implacable enemy of the Iraq war during 2007, but who, by mid

2008, is signaling more and more that he is open to prolonging the Iraq war virtually indefinitely.

Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our combat troops out

of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn’t actually saying he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At

a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert,

Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the

campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.’

(Matt Gonzalez, “The Obama Craze,” Counterpunch) ‘At the same event, Obama committed to

keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to “carry out our counter-terrorism activities there” which

includes “striking at al Qaeda in Iraq.” What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require

an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared b y the

Center for American Progress. Moreover, it appears he intends to “redeploy” the troops he takes

out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under

Obama’s plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war. This is hardly a position to get

excited about. (Matt Gonzalez, “The Obama Craze,” Counterpunch)

At some points during the 2007 debates, Obama spouted vaguely anti-imperialist rhetoric, but

this was clearly yet another hoax: when all is said and done, Obama, like Kerry, is basically

claiming to be a smarter imperialist than Bush, and that is nothing to write home about.

OBAMA VOTES AGAINST CLASS ACTION LAW SUITS

These days in Washington, when a lobbyist wants to take some important right away from the

American people, it is customary to cloak such operation under the edifying term of “reform.”

Obama’s own parlance is rich in many examples of this kind of doubletalk. A good case study is

Obama support of what the corporate lobbyists like to call “class action reform,” which is no reform

at all but rather a high-handed outrage by the malefactors of great wealth.

‘In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action

Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action

lawsuits. Long a desired objective of large corporations and President George Bush, Obama in

effect voted to deny redress in many of the courts where these kinds of cases have the best

chance of surviving corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces them into the backlogged

Republican-judge dominated federal courts. By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry

joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the “reform” was a thinly-veiled “special interest

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 257

extravaganza” that favored banking, creditors and other corporate interests. David Sirota, the

former spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, commented on

CAFA in the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, “Opposed by most major civil rights and

consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a

way to stop “frivolous” lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill’s real objective was

to protect corporate abusers.” Nation contributor Dan Zegart noted further: “On its face, the

class-action bill is mere procedural tinkering, transferring from state to federal court actions

involving more than $5 million where any plaintiff is from a different state from the defendant

company. But federal courts are much more hostile to class actions than their state counterparts;

such cases tend to be rooted in the finer points of state law, in which federal judges are reluctant

to dabble. And even if federal judges do take on these suits, with only 678 of them on the bench

(compared with 9,200 state judges), already overburdened dockets will grow. Thus, the bill will

make class actions, most of which involve discrimination, consumer fraud and wage-and-hour

violations all but impossible. One example: After forty lawsuits were filed against Wal-Mart for

allegedly forcing employees to work “off the clock,” four state courts certified these suits as

class actions. Not a single federal court did so, although the practice probably involves

hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide.” Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly

make it harder for working-class people (Or the people of Hunter Point suing Lennar) to have

their day in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress? (Matt Gonzalez, “The Obama

Craze,” Counterpunch)

Washington is full of corrupt congressmen who are experts in this kind of flimflam; but the truly

galling thing about Obama is the sanctimonious hypocrisy with which he envelops each and every

criminal sellout of the public interest.

Obama has always been the trimmer, and has sought to avoid above all things an irrevocable,

clear, and principled stand on any major issue. One of his favorite tricks in the Illinois Senate was

to constantly vote present when he needed to take evasive action:

These seemingly unusual votes wherein Obama aligns himself with Republican Party interests

aren’t new. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of

medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. Capping non-economic damages in

medical malpractice cases means a victim cannot fully recover for pain and suffering or for

punitive damages. Moreover, it ignored that courts were already empowered to adjust awards

when appropriate, and that the Illinois Supreme Court had previously ruled such limits on tort

reform violated the state constitution. In the US Senate, Obama continued interfering with

patients’ full recovery for tortious conduct. He was a sponsor of the National Medical Error

Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to

patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, coupled with apologies, is rewarded by

limiting patients’ economic recovery. Rather than simply mandating disclosure, Obama’s

solution is to trade what should be mandated for something that should never be given away:

namely, full recovery for the injured patient. (Matt Gonzalez, “The Obama Craze,”

Counterpunch)

OBAMA BLOCKS REFORM OF THE MINING LAW OF 1872

An entire separate detailed study would be necessary to fully cover the extent of Obama’s

involvement with been ruthless corporate barons who run the mining industry. Some Southern

258 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Illinois coal mine owners clearly own a time share of Obama, and he has been shameless in

delivering on their demands:

In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious

Mining Law of 1872. The current statute, signed into law by Ulysses Grant, allows mining

companies to pay a nominal fee, as little as $2.50 an acre, to mine for hardrock minerals like

gold, silver, and copper without paying royalties. Yearly profits for mining hardrock on public

lands is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion a year, according to Earthworks, a group that

monitors the industry. Not surprisingly, the industry spends freely when it comes to lobbying:

an estimated $60 million between 1998-2004, according to The Center on Public Integrity. And

it appears to be paying off, yet again. The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007

would have finally overhauled the law and allowed American taxpayers to reap part of the

royalties (4 percent of gross revenue on existing mining operations and 8 percent on new ones).

The bill provided a revenue source to clean up abandoned hardrock mines, which is likely to

cost taxpayers over $50 million, and addressed health and safety concerns in the 11 affected

western states. Later it came to light that one of Obama’s key advisors in Nevada is a Nevadabased

lobbyist in the employ of various mining companies. (CBS News “Obama’s Position on

Mining Law Questioned. Democrat Shares Position with Mining Executives Who Employ

Lobbyist Advising Him,” November 14, 2007).

NUCLEAR REGULATION: THE SENATOR FROM EXELON

(AKA TOM AYERS’ COMM EDISON)

Naturally, Obama’s deepest loyalties (if that is the word) go to the late Thomas Ayers of

Commonwealth Edison, now known as Exelon. Thomas Ayers is one of the principal figures who

lifted Obama up out of nothingness and made him. Not surprisingly, Obama has done yeoman

service for the Ayers interests:

The New York Times reported that, while campaigning in Iowa in December 2007, Obama

boasted that he had passed a bill requiring nuclear plants to promptly report radioactive leaks.

This came after residents of his home state of Illinois complained they were not told of leaks

that occurred at a nuclear plant operated by Exelon Corporation. The truth, however, was that

Obama allowed the bill to be amended in Committee by Senate Republicans, replacing

language mandating reporting with verbiage that merely offered guidance to regulators on how

to address unreported leaks. The story noted that even this version of Obama’s bill failed to pass

the Senate, so it was unclear why Obama was claiming to have passed the legislation. The

February 3, 2008 The New York Times article titled “Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested

Obama in Senate” by Mike McIntire also noted the opinion of one of Obama’s constituents,

which was hardly enthusiastic about Obama’s legislative efforts: “Senator Obama’s staff was

sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive

draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level

radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.” As it

turns out, the New York Times story noted: “Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon,

which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the

United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive

vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.” (Matt

Gonzalez, “The Obama Craze,” Counterpunch)

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 259

CORN-BASED ETHANOL GENOCIDE FOR THE THIRD WORLD

Obama is also fully committed to the monstrosity of turning corn into gasoline at extravagant

expense while a hungry world starved to death. This is, after all, a strange way to appeal for the

friendship of the developing countries, where cheap corn often means the difference between life

and death. González notes that

…on energy policy, Obama is a big supporter of corn-based ethanol which is well-known for

being an energy-intensive crop to grow. It is estimated that seven barrels of oil are required to

produce eight barrels of corn ethanol, according to research by the Cato Institute. Ethanol’s

impact on climate change is nominal and isn’t “green” according to Alisa Gravitz, Co-op

America executive director. “It simply isn’t a major improvement over gasoline when it comes

to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.” A 2006 University of Minnesota study by Jason

Hill and David Tilman, and an earlier study published in BioScience in 2005, concur. (There’s

even concern that a reliance on corn-based ethanol would lead to higher food prices.) So why

would Obama be touting this as a solution to our oil dependency? Could it have something to

do with the fact that the first presidential primary is located in Iowa, corn capital of the country?

In legislative terms this means Obama voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn subsidies in

2006 alone…. (Matt Gonzalez, “The Obama Craze,” Counterpunch)

OBAMA REJECTS UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Wall Street commentators have made no secret of the fact that they prefer Obama because he is

the only Democrat not to demand national, universal health care. Here it is extremely clear that

Obama has chosen to champion the financier interest while mortifying and betray the obvious

public interest of all Americans, and indeed of all persons under US jurisdiction. González has

drawn up the following catalog of Obama’s betrayals in this department:

Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and

John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Single-payer

works by trying to diminish the administrative costs that comprise somewhere around one-third

of every health care dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative nature of these services. The

expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to

cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr.

Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and cofounder

of Physicians for a National Health Program. Obama’s own plan has been widely

criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions

of people to remain uninsured. “Sicko” filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, “Obama

wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies

who have created the mess in the first place.”’ (Matt Gonzalez, “The Obama Craze,”

Counterpunch)

Michael Moore, no man of principle, did not let the little matter of universal health care get in

the way of a slobbering public embrace of Obama as soon as he thought that would represent a

career enhancing move. In the meantime, a 40 to 50 million Americans have no health care

insurance, and prospects for any improvement in the refuge or Obama regime are exceedingly grim.

260 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

OBAMA STRADDLES ON FREE TRADE SELLOUTS

During the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, Obama postured as a sharp critic of free trade

sellouts like NAFTA, CAFTA, and others. At the same time, Obama sent his top economic

controller, Skull and Bones alumnus Austin Goolsbee of the Friedmanite Chicago school, to

reassure the Canadians that Obama was simply bloviating for electoral purposes. Obama has

flipped on this issue literally countless times:

Regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement, Obama recently boasted, “I don’t think

NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have.” Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed

Obama’s record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated Press article and found that

comment to be misleading: “In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more

deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent’s call for tariffs would spark a

trade war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having

accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade

protections for US workers.”’ (Matt Gonzalez, “The Obama Craze,” Counterpunch)

After Goolsbee’s secret contacts with the Canadians were revealed, Obama indignantly denied

that these talks had taken place. Nevertheless, at the close of the primary season, in June 2008,

Obama told Fortune magazine that he was indeed a friend free trade agreements and a dedicated

apostle of the supremacy of market forces. But, just as in the case of Obama’s warmongering

against Pakistan and other countries, the lemming legions loyal to Barky are epistemologically

incapable of seeing the reality before their eyes, meaning that they are hysterical in the strict sense

of the word.

By now, Obama has learned to recite the standard Democratic Party litany that labor and

environmental guarantees must be included in any future free trade sellouts — as if these trivial and

minimalist requirements would do anything to stop or even slow the destruction of the US economy

by the sinister forces of economic globalization. But when it comes to actually voting for

something concrete in this direction, Obama is as totally impotent and feckless as he usually is:

Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually given an opportunity to protect workers from

unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September

2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that

would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards

from unfair foreign trade practices. The bill would have been a vital tool to combat the

outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers and would have ended a common corporate practice

known as “pole-vaulting” over regulations, which allows companies doing foreign business to

avoid “right to organize,” “minimum wage,” and other worker protections. (Matt Gonzalez,

“The Obama Craze,” Counterpunch)

OBAMA THE WIMP

One of the issues discussed in the Democratic candidates debates in the early part of the primary

season was the need to fight the entrenched powers of Washington in order to make any progress at

all of the People’s agenda. Senator Edwards talked a very good game of fighting, and promised to

fight all the way to the convention, but then suddenly dropped out even before the Super Tuesday

primaries. Senator Clinton promised to fight, and then won wide admiration by actually delivering

on that promise, showing considerable courage in the process. Obama’s method was to take the

capitulation policy of someone like his mentor Tom Daschle, and raise that cowardice and

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 261

appeasement to the theoretical level of positive virtue. It was clear to many that Obama is a wimp

far worse than Bush the Elder, an incurable wuss and whiner. González senses the seriousness of

this problem and asks:

Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn’t have his

picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a

fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage

(Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown

admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to

avoid Newsom for that reason.) (Matt Gonzalez, “The Obama Craze,” Counterpunch)

We need to point out here that anything impinging on homosexuality evokes palpable terror on

the part of Obama, quite evidently because of his own bisexual practices, as Larry Sinclair has

pointed out. Another case in point is the death penalty, which Obama supports, for obvious

demagogic reasons. A politician who was willing to sacrifice human lives as the rhetorical props

for his own ambition is beneath contempt, and this fits the anointed one:

Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still

supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey

Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New

Jersey Assembly.)’ (Matt Gonzalez, “The Obama Craze,” Counterpunch)

So far, Obama has proven undecided about how to play the Mexophobia card. Here his

maneuvering is complicated by the contradictory situation in which he desperately needs Latinos to

vote for him, while these Hispanic voters have shown that they simply cannot stomach Obama and

are against him by at least a two to one margin.

On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double

fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues

who had the courage to oppose it. But now that he’s campaigning in Texas and eager to win over

Mexican-American voters, he says he’d employ a different border solution. (Matt Gonzalez, “The

Obama Craze,” Counterpunch)

Gonzalez is surely on firm ground when he concludes: ‘It is shocking how frequently and

consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political

benefit.’ (Matt Gonzalez, “The Obama Craze,” Counterpunch)

If Nader and González can develop an anti-Obama critique of the necessary depth and intensity,

they will be performing an important public and patriotic service in helping to disorganize and

demoralize the left wing of Obama’s movement of fanatical cultists.

OBAMA OPPOSES CAPS ON CREDIT CARD INTEREST, FAVORS USURY

One of the issues which was raised against Obama during the course of the Democratic

candidates’ debates was his vote against a mandatory federal limit on credit card interest rates. It

was clear to everyone that the interest rate cap included in the bill in question was far too high, but

on the other hand passing the bill meant regulating credit card rates at the federal level for the first

time in living memory. Obama predictably voted in favor of maintaining limitless usury in the

tradition of Jeremy Bentham, and at the same time retreated behind a pedantic, professorial

smokescreen about how the legislation had failed to meet his high standards. One might say that

262 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Obama’s trick is to make the perfect the enemy of the good, thus blocking any concrete and

practical benefit that might actually be within reach. As Gonzalez points out,

Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame

poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an amendment he voted on as part of a recent bankruptcy

bill before the US Senate would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent.

Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it would have been the beginning of setting

these predatory lending rates under federal control. Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.

Now Obama explains his vote by saying the amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling

too high. His explanation isn’t credible as Obama offered no lower number as an alternative,

and didn’t put forward his own amendment clarifying whatever language he found

objectionable. Why wouldn’t Obama have voted to create the first federal ceiling on predatory

credit card interest rates, particularly as he calls himself a champion of the poor and middle

classes? Perhaps he was signaling to the corporate establishment that they need not fear him.

For all of his dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it seems Obama has little intention

of doing anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome. (Matt

Gonzalez, “The Obama Craze,” Counterpunch)

OBAMA AS THE LEADING SABOTEUR OF IMPEACHMENT

Given the way the 2008 primaries worked, Obama was able to attract a very large part of the left

liberal wing of the Democratic Party into his camp. These left liberals had been the leading force

calling for the impeachment and removal from office of Bush and Cheney, and action which is not a

mere matter of opinion, but rather an objective necessity if we want to wipe the slate clean of all the

liberticide precedents and entrenched totalitarian practices of the Bush Cheney regime. There is in

fact an ample window for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney by the new Democratic Congress

during the 17 days between the convening of the two chambers on January 3, 2009, and Bush’s

departure from office (in so far as the law is observed) on January 20, 2009 at noon. But, by early

February 2008, it was clear that the left liberals supporting Obama were dropping impeachment like

a hot potato, evidently because it conflicted with the Perfect Master’s pledge to usher in a new

golden age of harmonious bipartisan cooperation, thanks to the beatific and transfiguring power of

Barky’s radiant personality. Impeachment, by contrast, is a very messy and a very partisan affair

indeed, but it happens to be necessary to preserve constitutional government in this country. One of

the reasons that the Trilateral financiers deployed Obama in the first place was because of their

desire to divert and deflect a very strong mass resentment against Bush, Cheney, the neocons, and

much of what they stand for. Obama has largely succeeded in fulfilling this task, since his

candidacy has coincided with the collapse of momentum in favor of impeachment up and down the

line. By sending forth Obama, the Trilateral banking faction is attempting to set in motion a process

of organizing masses of the American people against themselves with the help of a ruthless

demagogue financed by an avalanche of cash — a process which has all the essential characteristics

of fascism. González shows that

Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment proceedings against the president

(“Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable,” USA Today, June 28, 2007) and he wouldn’t even

support Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s effort to censure the Bush administration for

illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 and Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act. In Feingold’s words “I’m amazed at Democrats cowering with this

president’s numbers so low.” Once again, it’s troubling that Obama would take these positions

VI. Grabbing a Senate Seat with a Little Help from his Trilateral Friends 263

and miss the opportunity to document the abuses of the Bush regime. (Matt Gonzalez, “The

Obama Craze,” Counterpunch)

In the final analysis, Obama emerges as a demagogue and word monger of a new and dangerous

type. González concludes:

Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently.

The principal conclusion I draw about “change” and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to

change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday

make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a

dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an

agent of change.

OBAMA IN THE POCKET OF THE COAL LOBBY

One of the most grotesque contradictions which has emerged from Obama is relentless pursuit of

corporate sponsorship has been the Perfect Master’s relationship with the coal industry in Illinois

and beyond. After the primaries were over, Obama announced that an energy policy capable of

dealing with the pseudo-problem of global warming and climate change would represent one of his

three top priorities, and this is precisely what we would expect from such a deeply Malthusian

mentality. But, at the same time, Obama continues his loyal service to the holding companies that

control the coal industry, even though it is by now clear that coal is much more valuable when used

as an indispensable feedstock for the modern petrochemical production, rather than being used as a

fuel, where it is hopelessly outclassed by nuclear power. Nevertheless, Obama has attempted to

straddle this issue as well:

Reflecting the interests of southern Illinois coal producers, he sponsored legislation to provide

tax breaks and other incentives for refineries that turn coal into liquid fuel, generating criticism

from environmental groups that say the coal-based technology would contribute to global

warming. (Chicago Tribune, June 12, 2007)

The Washington Post has attempted to make a mockery of this important issue and get Barky off

the hook that way:

“Who, but who,” writes the Post, ‘would soil the environmental reputation of Barack Obama?

The Democratic senator from Illinois gets stellar marks from greens. Just a few months ago he

was calling global warming “real,” saying: “It is here.... We couldn’t just keep burning fossil

fuels and contribute to the changing atmosphere without consequence.” Sen. Barack Obama (DIll.)

has reintroduced the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007. It’s a development that

has the coal crowd cheering. (Charles Dharapak, AP)

So why then, environmentalists ask, is Obama backing a law supporting the expanded use of

coal, whose emissions are cooking the globe? It seems the answer is twofold: his interest in

energy independence — and his interest in downstate Illinois, where the senator’s green tinge

makes the coal industry queasy... (Elizabeth Williamson, “The Green Gripe With Obama:

Liquefied Coal Is Still . . . Coal,” Washington Post, January 10, 2007116

One way to make sense of this picture is to recall that the Rockefeller-Trilateral interests that

controlled the Carter administration were obsessed at that time with the notion of increasing US

coal production, and indeed with making domestic coal the central element of a national energy

policy for many decades to come. This lunatic project, like so many others, disappeared in the

264 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

general shipwreck of Carter’s ship of fools, but look for it to reemerge if Obama is able to seize

power over the coming months.

A FECKLESS AND CALLOW YOUTH BLINDED

BY MEGALOMANIA AND EASY SUCCESS

It was in October 2006 that Obama published a new edition of his memoir, The Audacity of

Hope. As is now widely known, the title is borrowed from a line which appears in one of his

sermons of the foundation-funded racist provocateur, the raving Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who

served as Obama as mentor and spiritual adviser for more than two decades, with Obama paying

through the nose for this dubious privilege with the majority of his charitable contributions yearover-

year. The original edition of this book first appeared in 1995. What kind of a man writes his

own autobiography when he has not yet reached the age of 35, and has accomplished virtually

nothing in life? The ominous answer may well be, a megalomaniac, a person suffering from

delusions of grandeur, like the stock inmate of a mental hospital who imagines that he is the

Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. Obama appears to be aware of the megalomania which for him is

always nearby, and appears to be at pains to dispel the cold glare of these delusions with a kind of

frivolous and superficial, but also nervous and high-strung, attempt at humor:

When asked to speak in 2006 at the Gridiron Dinner — a white-tie-and-tails gathering that

brings together Washington’s political and media elites — he reached for humor to show a bit

of humility and deflate expectations. “Most of all,” he told reporters gathered for the function,

“I want to thank you for all the generous advance coverage you’ve given me in anticipation of a

successful career. When I actually do something, we’ll let you know.” (Chicago Tribune, June

12, 2007)

The American people are still waiting.

CHAPTER VII: THE HOPE POPE AND

HIS TRILATERAL MONEY MACHINE

A new political alliance is being forged in this country between the super-rich and the superpoor–

especially the alienated and activist members of minority groups. The Ford Foundation,

under the aggressive leadership of McGeorge Bundy, is providing the major thrust for this

power bloc ... This is a dangerous game but it doesn’t seem to worry those members of the

‘Eastern Establishment’ who are involved. They’re sure that no matter what happens they’ll still

be on top. Vincent J. Salandria, 1971.

“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own

views . . .” - Obama

Obama, as we have seen thus far, is the puppet candidate of an unparalleled combination of

institutions representing the Anglo-American ruling financier elite: his family traditions of those of

the Ford Foundation and of its satellite foundations. He enjoys the backing of the Rockefeller,

family, of George Soros, and now of Rupert Murdoch. His career has been fostered by the Trilateral

Commission and the Bilderberger group at the highest levels. His controllers, advisors, handlers,

and entourage come from the Council on Foreign Relations, the RAND Corporation, Skull and

Bones, and the Chicago school of reactionary economics. Many of these institutions had already

collaborated in the most elaborate previous attempt to create an entire presidential administration

around a candidate as the puppet of these financiers — the CFR 1980s Project, and the resulting

Jimmy Carter regime. Obama might be called the candidate of pan-oligarchy, that is to say of an

attempt to unite the warring factions of the US-UK elite for the purpose of securing another century

of world domination for London and Washington. Brzezinski, Huntington, and the other members

of the Trilateral brain trust had been expecting the domestic political upheaval inside the United

States to begin sometime after 2010, but the disasters of the Bush presidency had accelerated the

timetable. A suitable puppet demagogue was now urgently required for the 2008 contest.

Accordingly, after just a few months in the US Senate, Barky was given the go-code to begin his

presidential campaign, and the Rockefeller-Soros-Trilateral-Bilderberg-CFR-RAND-Skull and

Bones-Chicago Boys-foundation network went into high gear.

This unparalleled combination of financier factions and interest groups is prepared to spend

something approaching half a billion US dollars for the purpose of creating an Obama regime.

These are admittedly depreciated dollars, but this is still an impressive investment. Obama has now

emerged as the greatest Pluto-candidate in all of American history, a figure who is leading historical

characteristic may appear to future observers in the form of the unprecedented money machine

which his wealthy backers have assembled around the vapid utopian slogans and hollow messianic

rhetoric of the Hope Pope. Obama’s rich supporters, it should be obvious, are not paying through

the nose in this way because they find these demented slogans compelling. Rather, they are paying

top dollar for direct access to political power – naked, brutal, crushing, pitiless political power. In

this they are like Fritz Thyssen, a friend of Prescott Bush and the author of a book entitled I Paid

Hitler, a man who was not interested in Hitler’s idiotic and primitive views about race and history,

but was rather looking for a steady supply of slave laborers for the factory complexes that grow up

around the concentration camps. Obama, it must be added, is a far more degraded and abject

puppet then Jimmy Carter ever was, if only because he has been indoctrinated for a much longer

time. With Obama in the White House, and large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress

standing ready to rubber-stamp his crimes, the financiers will be in a position to pursue their

266 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

fantastic design for permanent world domination, even as they flay the American people alive by

forms of austerity and sacrifice that will reduce the standard of living to perhaps one half or one

third of the current depressed levels. This is what Obama means when he pontificates about his

future regime: “I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington, but I’ve been

there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.” (Quoted in “Raising

Obama,” Todd Purdum, Vanity Fair, March 2008)

OBAMA AS PLUTOCRAT

The necessary fuel for this monstrous and cynical project is money, money in vast quantities.

De l’argent, encore de l’argent, toujours de l’argent. During the 2008 primaries, Obama

distinguished himself from most of the other candidates by his unparalleled hypocrisy on precisely

this score. Obama has tried to portray himself as an opponent of corruption, a candidate of good

government and clean government, a foe of the preponderant role of money in political campaigns,

a supporter of campaign finance reform and strict ethics requirements for government officials, and

as the implacable enemy of lobbyists, pork barrel spending, and earmarks of all sorts. But, upon

closer examination, this entire profile is revealed as a chimera, an illusion, a mirage. Obama bids

fair to become the most corrupt presidential candidate of all time. This is a corruption that goes far

beyond even the horrendous practices of the Alsammarae-Auchi-Rezko axis which we have already

discussed. The phalanx of plutocratic financier interests which is now uniting around the

figurehead candidacy of Obama reaches from Chicago to Wall Street for London and far beyond,

and includes some of the wealthiest banks, investment banks, brokerage firms, defense contractors,

and law firms in the entire world.

During the primaries, Obama had promised that he would find a compromise with Senator

McCain so as to allow the fall presidential campaign to be governed by the public financing rules of

the Federal Elections Commission, with each candidate pledging to use only public funds and to

respect the various rules inherent in the system. This commitment by Obama was one of the most

essential and qualifying parts of his entire campaign. In June 2008, however, Obama pompously

announced that this promise was no longer operational, and that he would become the first

candidate in United States history to reject the public financing system for the fall campaign, and

would rely exclusively on the contributions that he would gather from the backers. This showed,

for anyone who was still keeping score, that Obama is a liar and a scoundrel.

Obama’s hypocrisy and duplicity concerning campaign finance reform are matched by his

deceptive public pledge never to receive campaign contributions from lobbyists. Here, once again,

the Perfect Master is duping his gullible following. Obama knows very well that, in a law firm that

has lobbying the federal government as one of its primary objectives, the number of registered

lobbyists is generally a limited minority of the lawyers who own the firm. There are always lots

and lots of other partners, to say nothing of administrators, and even clerical personnel, plus

innumerable spouses, children, and other relatives who can be coerced into contributing $2,300

each to the Obama campaign. Indeed, it is clear enough that many such law firms make

contributions in this sort a condition for keeping one’s job in the first place. This practice is known

as bundling, and it makes a mockery of the austere limits to fundraising which Obama is so fond of

parading in his inimitable self-righteous way. If we were able to determine the amount of cash that

Barky has raked in at law firms and others engaged in lobbying, using the broad definition to

suggest that, we would probably find that Obama is the all-time champion when it comes to cashing

in with lobbyists.

VII: The Hope Pope and his Trilateral Money Machine 267

DECLARING FOR PRESIDENT WITH SOROS AND MOVEON.ORG

One of Obama’s most important supporters is the classic ultra left financier George Soros. Soros

has long-standing ties to the leadership clique of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve, the

flagship of the entire system. Soros is also deeply involved in the US intelligence community,

controlling a set of foundations whose activity has been key for subversion operations into with the

former Warsaw Pact and Soviet space. Soros is also the sugar daddy for many US left liberal and

ultra left activists, particularly in the antiwar movement. Without the sponsorship of Soros,

Moveon.org could hardly have gotten off the ground. The characteristic profile of those groups that

are on the Soros gravy train is that they demand an end to the Iraq war, but say nothing about

getting the US out of Afghanistan, since the Afghanistan component is fully coherent with

Brzezinski’s plan for bringing down China and Russia. Soros is also associated with a series of

projects designed to assault traditional moral values, such as his championing of legalized narcotics

to be made freely available, inevitably to young people as well. Soros endorsed Obama at the

Davos confab of global oligarchs in January 2007, just after Barky had announced his bid for the

White House:

“As for the U.S. 2008 presidential race, Mr. Soros, who gave $18 million to Democratic

advocacy groups seeking to defeat President Bush in 2004, said he supported Barack Obama.

But he also said he would support Hillary Clinton if she won the Democratic nomination.”117

Soros is acutely aware of the fact that the entire Anglo-American financial system is now

descending into a chaotic breakdown crisis. In this crisis, Soros knows what he wants, and that is

savage austerity, sacrifice, and a reduction of the living standards of working people across the

board. Since Soros is well aware that Obama nurses a hate-filled grudge against American bluecollar

workers, he is looking to Barky to serve as the exterminating angel of the austerity he wants

to institute. Here is Soros’ diagnosis of the present world economic depression:

The current financial crisis was precipitated by a bubble in the US housing market. In some

ways it resembles other crises that have occurred since the end of the Second World War at

intervals ranging from four to 10 years. However, there is a profound difference: the current

crisis marks the end of an era of credit expansion based on the dollar as the international reserve

currency. The periodic crises were part of a larger boom-bust process. The current crisis is the

culmination of a super-boom that has lasted for more than 60 years. (George Soros, Financial

Times, January 23, 2008)

Now that the boom is over, Soros wants to clear the decks for austerity, with Obama as his

chosen left-cover enforcer. Soros is the kingpin of Moveon.org, but he is also joined by a phalanx of

other limousine liberals eager to use a left-wing demagogue to obtain a new phase of aggressive

foreign policy, and a new round of austerity and sacrifice at home. This process started in the 2004

election, and it is Barky who is now the beneficiary, since the financier community feels they

cannot rely on Senator Clinton to deliver the kind of bone crushing reductions in the standard of

living which they know they will require: According to the March 10, 2004, Washington Post,

The Democratic 527 organizations have drawn support from some wealthy liberals determined

to defeat Bush. They include financier George Soros who gave $1.46 million to MoveOn.org

Voter Fund (in the form of matching funds to recruit additional small donors); Peter B. Lewis,

chief executive of the Progressive Corp., who gave $500,000 to MoveOn.org Voter Fund; and

Linda Pritzker, of the Hyatt hotel family, and her Sustainable World Corp., who gave $4 million

to the joint fundraising committee.

268 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

OBAMA’S NIGHT OF THE LONG KNIVES FOR LEFT FANATICS

It was of course Moveon.org who attacked General Petraeus with the famous “General Betray

Us” ads of September 2007 – hardly an act of great courage, since this was already the safe majority

view. When the Republicans tried to ram through a resolution condemning these ads, Obama did

not defend his friends, but characteristically ran like a rabbit. By June-July 2008, Obama would be

sniping at his own ultra-left storm troopers. The dynamic here is similar to Hitler’s Night of the

Long Knives in June-July 1934, when the brown shirts of the SA and their ideas of a second

revolution were liquidated. Obama needed the ultra leftist lemmings of moveon.org as shock troops

against the Clinton machine. Once he thought he had the nomination in his grasp, it was time to

dump the ultra lefts, whose hysterical fanaticism could easily become a liability. Soros understands

these tactics perfectly, since his goal is mainly to put his puppet Obama in the White House so

Obama can implement the policies that Soros wants.

MoveOn.org executive director Eli Pariser said the country needs a president to “change

business as usual in Washington.” Soros’ 34-year-old son Jonathan Soros, an attorney and financier,

recently promoted to deputy manager of Soros Fund Management LLC, is heavily involved with

MoveOn.org’s activities. Obama’s much touted opposition to the war helped him pick up the

backing of MoveOn.org, which claims to have 3.2 million members. Pariser claimed that Obama

had won the referendum by a vote of 70 percent to 30 percent for Clinton, but there were some who

saw vote fraud at work. ‘The group claimed that it had 1.7 million members in the 22 states

scheduled to vote in the primaries, that it would immediately begin a campaign to get them behind

Obama…’118

Worldly asceticism has no place in Obama’s method of operations. Obama is not shy about

accepting rides on corporate jets, especially when he is in a hurry to get to one of his own wellheeled

fund raising events.

Senator Barack Obama flew at least nine times on corporate jets last year, traveling to fundraisers

in New York and San Francisco, home to Chicago and to Rosa Parks’ funeral in Detroit.

Each time, he reimbursed the plane’s owners at first-class rates, as Senate rules require. But Mr.

Obama, freshman Democrat from Illinois, felt queasy about this perk of Senate life, so he said

he gave it up. “This is an example where appearances matter,” he said. “Very few of my

constituents have a chance to travel on a corporate jet.” (“Obama accepts rides on corporate

jets, some to attend his own fundraisers,” New York Times, March 7 2006)

Has he kept his pledge? In any case, he now has his own corporate jet.

OBAMA’S MONEY CARTEL

But flights in corporate jets are only the beginning. Obama’s money cartel is so immense that

we can only indicate some of its major components. A good starting point is Exelon, the former

Commonwealth Edison, and the company dominated for decades by Thomas Ayers, the father of

Obama’s close friend, the former Weatherman terrorist bomber, Bill Ayers.

Exelon’s executives and employees were big backers of Obama’s 2004 Senate bid and gave his

presidential campaign nearly $160,000 in the first quarter of this year, second only to UBSAmericas,

according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group. (Chicago

Tribune, June 12, 2007)

VII: The Hope Pope and his Trilateral Money Machine 269

Pam Martens, a researcher with considerable Wall Street experience, has provided a useful

exposé of Obama’s money cartel. It turns out that some of Obama’s biggest donors are also among

the most predatory and parasitical jackals that the financial community has to offer. A case in point

involves the subprime and adjustable rate mortgage gang, who have victimized the black

community to an even greater degree than they have looted the rest of the US population. Obama is

the beneficiary of the largesse of these same predatory lenders:

Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors consist of officers and employees of the same

Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in

originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left

thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to

see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a

lifetime. These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS

AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There

is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to

Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one

is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist but does legal work for Wall

Street. The cumulative total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was $2,872,128,

and we’re still in the primary season. (Pam Martens, Obama’s Money Cartel: How he’s fronted

for the most vicious firms on Wall Street, CounterPunch, February 23, 2008)

Martens notes the hypocrisy of Obama’s repeated lie that he does not take money from

lobbyists: ‘But hasn’t Senator Obama repeatedly told us in ads and speeches and debates that he

wasn’t taking money from registered lobbyists? Hasn’t the press given him a free pass on this

statement? Barack Obama, speaking in Greenville, South Carolina, on January 22, 2008:

“Washington lobbyists haven’t funded my campaign, they won’t run my White House, and they

will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president”. Barack Obama, in

an email to supporters on June 25, 2007, as reported by the Boston Globe: “Candidates typically

spend a week like this – right before the critical June 30th financial reporting deadline – on the

phone, day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge

checks. Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-influence game and refused to accept

funds from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees.” The Center for

Responsive Politics’ website allows one to pull up the filings made by lobbyists registering

under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 with the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives

and secretary of the U.S. Senate. These top five contributors to the Obama campaign have filed

as registered lobbyists: Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, et al; Jenner & Block; Kirkland &

Ellis; Wilmerhale, aka Wilmer Cutler Pickering. Is it possible that Senator Obama does not

know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists? Or is he making a

distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms, he’s not

really taking money directly from registered lobbyists? That thesis seems disingenuous when

many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and

share in the profits generated from lobbying. Far from keeping his distance from lobbyists,

Senator Obama and his campaign seems to be brainstorming with them. (Pam Martens,

Obama’s Money Cartel: How he’s fronted for the most vicious firms on Wall Street,

CounterPunch, February 23, 2008)

Obama is most eager to take money from law firms that are chock-full of registered lobbyists;

only the most naïve gulls and dupes can believe his repeated posturing that he will not be the

creature of lobbyists if he ever gets into power.

270 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

OBAMA AS CORPORATE MERCENARY AGAINST CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS

Martens analyzes Obama’s vote in favor of the outrageous and reactionary anti-class-action

legislation of some years back. Here there is a direct link between the money of Obama took and

his vote against the rights of ordinary people to seek recourse against corporate abuses through the

courts when they have been victimized:

On February 10, 2005, Senator Obama voted in favor of the passage of the Class Action

Fairness Act of 2005. Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry,

Leahy, Reid and 16 other Democrats voted against it. It passed the Senate 72-26 and was signed

into law on February 18, 2005. …

Three days before Senator Obama expressed that fateful yea vote, 14 state attorneys general,

including Lisa Madigan of Senator Obama’s home state of Illinois, filed a letter with the Senate

and House, pleading to stop the passage of this corporate giveaway. The AGs wrote: “State

attorneys general frequently investigate and bring actions against defendants who have caused

harm to our citizens... In some instances, such actions have been brought with the attorney

general acting as the class representative for the consumers of the state. We are concerned that

certain provisions of S.5 might be misinterpreted to impede the ability of the attorneys general

to bring such actions...”

The Senate also received a desperate plea from more than 40 civil rights and labor

organizations, including the NAACP, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Human

Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Justice and Democracy, Legal

Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund), and Alliance for Justice.

They wrote as follows:

“Under the [Class Action Fairness Act of 2005], citizens are denied the right to use their own

state courts to bring class actions against corporations that violate these state wage and hour and

state civil rights laws, even where that corporation has hundreds of employees in that state.

Moving these state law cases into federal court will delay and likely deny justice for working

men and women and victims of discrimination. The federal courts are already overburdened.

Additionally, federal courts are less likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of

state law.”

This legislation, which dramatically impaired labor rights, consumer rights and civil rights,

involved five years of pressure from 100 corporations, 475 lobbyists, tens of millions of

corporate dollars buying influence in our government, and the active participation of the Wall

Street firms now funding the Obama campaign. “The Civil Justice Reform Group, a business

alliance comprising general counsels from Fortune 100 firms, was instrumental in drafting the

class-action bill”, says Public Citizen.

One of the hardest-working registered lobbyists to push this corporate giveaway was the law

firm Mayer-Brown, hired by the leading business lobby group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Chamber of Commerce spent $16 million

in just 2003, lobbying the government on various business issues, including class action reform.

(Pam Martens, Obama’s Money Cartel: How he’s fronted for the most vicious firms on Wall

Street, CounterPunch, February 23, 2008)119THE SENATOR FROM CITIBANK

The role of Citigroup, where former Clinton Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin is one of

the leading personalities, is very instructive. We should remember that former Senator Tom

VII: The Hope Pope and his Trilateral Money Machine 271

Daschle, one of Obama’s leading surrogates, is notorious as the Senator from Citibank, since this

dubious financial institution was long one of the largest single employers in South Dakota.

Obama’s newest economics controller, Jason Furman, comes from Rubin’s reactionary Hamilton

Project, a nest of monetarists attempting to camouflage their intentions under a few shreds of

center-left cover. Martens asks:

So, how should we react when we learn that the top contributors to the Obama campaign are the

very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and

minority under predatory loans? How should we react when we learn that on the big donor list

is Citigroup, whose former employee at CitiFinancial testified to the Federal Trade Commission

that it was standard practice to target people based on race and educational level, with the sales

force winning bonuses called “Rocopoly Money” (like a sick board game), after “blitz” nights

of soliciting loans by phone? How should we react when we learn that these very same firms,

arm in arm with their corporate lawyers and registered lobbyists, have weakened our ability to

fight back with the class-action vehicle? (Pam Martens, Obama’s Money Cartel: How he’s

fronted for the most vicious firms on Wall Street, CounterPunch, February 23, 2008)

Martens goes on to ask, in despair:

Should there be any doubt left as to who owns our government? The very same cast of

characters making the Obama hit parade of campaign loot are the clever creators of the industry

solutions to the wave of foreclosures gripping this nation’s poor and middle class, effectively

putting the solution in the hands of the robbers. The names of these programs (that have failed

to make a dent in the problem) have the same vacuous ring: Hope Now; Project Lifeline. (Pam

Martens, Obama’s Money Cartel: How he’s fronted for the most vicious firms on Wall Street,

CounterPunch, February 23, 2008)

The answer to this problem is quite simply the necessity of opposing Obama by exposing his

actual role as a servant of the financier elite.

LOBBYISTS: BUNDLERS FOR BARKY

Martens is not the only one to notice the glaring contradiction between Obama’s “no lobbyists”

pledge, and a veritable river of swag that runs from the lobbying offices on K Street into the coffers

of the Obama campaign. A major article in USA Today noted:

Barack Obama often boasts he is “the only candidate who isn’t taking a dime from Washington

lobbyists,” yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138

million last year to lobby the federal government, records show. Those lawyers, including 10

former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator’s

presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama’s campaign $2.26 million, a USA

Today analysis of campaign finance data shows. Which lawyers bundle money? Thirty-one of

the 38 are law firm partners, who typically receive a share of their firm’s lobbying fees. At least

six of them have some managerial authority over lobbyists. “It makes no difference whether the

person is a registered lobbyist or the partner of a registered lobbyist, if the person is raising

money to get access or curry favor,” said Michael Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance

Institute, a non-partisan think tank. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said that while Obama’s

refusal to take money from lobbyists “isn’t a perfect solution or symbol, it does reflect Obama’s

record of trying to change the way that Washington does business.” He declined to elaborate.

Lobbyists have long played key fundraising and policymaking roles for candidates, and

272 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

lobbyists are raising money for both Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain. Obama

fundraisers who work for law firms that lobby and share the fees include:

•Allan Katz, a Florida lawyer who chairs the government relations practice of Akerman

Senterfitt. The firm took in $3.6 million for Washington lobbying last year, according to public

records compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. The firm touts on its

website “an enviable level of access” for clients.

•Mark Alderman, managing partner of Philadelphia’s WolfBlock law firm. The firm’s lobbying

subsidiary earned $930,000 in Washington last year representing clients including defense

contractor Lockheed Martin, records show.

•Scott Blake Harris, managing partner of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, a Washington

telecommunications law firm. Harris withdrew as a lobbyist for Microsoft and Cisco in June,

but his partners still lobby, he said. (Ken Dilanian, USA Today, April 16, 2008)

As could be expected, most of these lobbyists claimed that their hefty contributions had nothing

whatsoever to do with their lobbying practice, but this was obviously eyewash. Obama is obviously

living a lie. This article was accompanied by the following highly instructive chart, which ought to

be required reading for the Obama cultists who still believe that their Savior is going to reform the

way Washington works, despite the fact that he is beholden to an immense array of interest groups,

including some of the most predatory ones in town. The chart shows contributions to the Obama

campaign from law firms that also do lobbying work. Either we assume that Obama is getting all

this money because of his pretty face, or else it is clear that these lobbyists are paying for access and

influence in the usual Washington mode, but on a vastly expanded scale.

OBAMA FUNDRAISERS: LOBBYIST TIES

These 38 fundraisers for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign work for law firms that have

lobbying operations in Washington, D.C. The dollar figure reflects the minimum amount each has

pledged to raise for the campaign.

Bundler Min. pledge Location Firm

Scott Harris $200,000 DC Harris, Wiltshire and Grannis

Allan J. Katz $200,000 FL Akerman Senterfitt

Michael Lawson $200,000 CA Skadden, Arps

John Levi $200,000 IL Sidley Austin

Karol Mason $200,000 GA Alston & Bird

Thomas J. Perrelli $200,000 VA Jenner & Block

Thomas A. Reed $200,000 VA Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis

Christina Tchen $200,000 IL Skadden, Arps

Tony West $200,000 CA Morrison & Foerster

Mark L. Alderman $100,000 PA Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen

Timothy M. Broas $100,000 MD Winston & Strawn

Peter Bynoe $100,000 IL DLA Piper

Gregory B. Craig $100,000 DC Williams & Connolly

Norman Eisen $100,000 DC Zuckerman Spaeder

VII: The Hope Pope and his Trilateral Money Machine 273

Nicole Lamb-Hale $100,000 MI Foley & Lardner

Andrew Schapiro $100,000 NY Mayer Brown

Charles C. Adams Jr. $50,000 Switzerland Hogan & Hartson

David Burd $50,000 DC Arnold & Porter

Tom Cole $50,000 IL Sidley Austin

Michael H. Dardzinski $50,000 China Reed Smith

Howard W. Gutman $50,000 MD Williams & Connolly

Jeff Horwitz $50,000 NY Proskauer Rose

David C. Jacobson $50,000 IL Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal

Hrishi Karthikeyan $50,000 DC Covington & Burling

Ronald Kirk $50,000 TX Vinson & Elkins

William T. Lake $50,000 DC WilmerHale

Edward Lazarus $50,000 CA Akin Gump

Jack Levin $50,000 IL Kirkland & Ellis

Kenneth G. Lore $50,000 DC Bingham McCutchen

Charles B. Ortner $50,000 NY Proskauer Rose

Susan Pravda $50,000 MA Foley & Lardner

Paul N. Roth $50,000 NY Schulte Roth & Zabel

John Schmidt $50,000 IL Mayer Brown

Robert M. Sussman* $50,000 DC Latham & Watkins

Kathryn Thomson $50,000 VA Sidley Austin

Barry B. White $50,000 MA Foley Hoag

Steven M. Zager $50,000 TX Akin Gump

Robert S. Litt n/a MD Arnold & Porter

* Robert M. Sussman retired as a partner on December 31, 2007

Source: Obama for America, Center for Responsive Politics, Public Citizen, from USA Today, April

16, 2008

OBAMA A CREATURE OF GOLDMAN SACHS, TOP OIL SPECULATORS

David Brooks of the New York Times, an avid chronicler of oligarchical affairs, discovered with

some surprise that Obama is far more venal even than his Republican rival, Senator McCain.

Brooks also found that one of the most important centers of bundling for Barky was the infamous

Wall Street investment house Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs, along with Morgan Stanley, was

responsible for the creation of the London ICE exchange or IntercontinentalExchange, the offshore

vehicle which now handles approximately one half of the oil futures contracts in the world.

Goldman Sachs co-founded ICE as a means of escaping even the desultory regulatory regime of the

US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in favor of the nonexistent regulatory regime in

Great Britain. A back of the envelope calculation suggests that Goldman Sachs alone is responsible

for about 40% of the oil speculation which has doubled the price of oil for American consumers of

petroleum products over the last year. With Goldman Sachs employees checking in as Obama’s

biggest bundlers, we leave it to the imagination of the reader whether Obama will bring much

enthusiasm to the task of reining in this gang of hyenas if he ever gets to the White House. Brooks

wrote:

274 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

As in other recent campaigns, lawyers account for the biggest chunk of Democratic donations.

They have donated about $18 million to Obama, compared with about $5 million to John

McCain, according to data released on June 2 and available at OpenSecrets.org. People who

work at securities and investment companies have given Obama about $8 million, compared

with $4.5 for McCain. People who work in communications and electronics have given Obama

about $10 million, compared with $2 million for McCain. Professors and other people who

work in education have given Obama roughly $7 million, compared with $700,000 for McCain.

Real estate professionals have given Obama $5 million, compared with $4 million for McCain.

Medical professionals have given Obama $7 million, compared with $3 million for McCain.

Commercial bankers have given Obama $1.6 million, compared with $1.2 million for McCain.

Hedge fund and private equity managers have given Obama about $1.6 million, compared with

$850,000 for McCain. When you break it out by individual companies, you find that employees

of Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than workers of any other employer. The Goldman

Sachs geniuses are followed by employees of the University of California, UBS, JPMorgan

Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Harvard and Google. At many of

these workplaces, Obama has a three- or four-to-one fund-raising advantage over McCain.

(David Brooks, New York Times, July 1, 2008)

OBAMA FINANCED BY THE MERCHANTS OF DEATH

Obama’s ties with Wall Street are bad enough, and then there is the matter of his strong support

from certain defense contractors who deal with the Pentagon, otherwise known as the merchants of

death. Among Obama’s strongest backers in the defense contractor community, we must of course

again mention the Crown family of General Dynamics fame, who belong to Obama’s intimate circle

of Chicago supporters. General Dynamics builds nuclear submarines and some light tanks that have

not given a very good account of themselves in Iraq. The Washington Post pointed to crown is a key

component of the Obama lucre cartel:

The Chicago contingent also includes James Crown, a director of General Dynamics, the

military contractor in which his family holds a large stake. The company has been the

beneficiary of at least one Obama earmark, a request to spend $8 million on a high-explosive

technology program for the Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The program got $1.3 million.

The descendants of Henry Crown, architect of a great American fortune, James Crown and his

family donated more than $128,000 to Obama’s U.S. Senate race in 2004. Crown was among

the first people Obama approached as he contemplated a White House run Crown said he and

Obama never discussed General Dynamics, which, with its focus on Army programs, is a

defense contractor that has benefited directly from the Iraq war. Obama’s opposition to the war

never meant that he wanted the armed forces to be poorly equipped, Crown said. “I stand in

agreement with what he has said [about the Iraq war.] Those who work in the defense industry

are extremely focused on the national defense,” he said. “That doesn’t mean we want to be

fighting wars.”120

CROWN’S BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLE: AN “EXPLODING COFFIN”

Crown is one of the bosses of General Dynamics, which produces the woefully inadequate

Bradley fighting vehicle. Here is the opinion of an experienced military man about what this

vehicle, a cross between a light tank and armored personnel carrier, is worth.

VII: The Hope Pope and his Trilateral Money Machine 275

The M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting vehicle is a three million dollar version of the World War II

Sherman tank, with room in the back for six guys. It weighs 30 tons, so it’s too heavy to be

picked up by any helicopter and too large to be carried by a C-130, and is not truly amphibious.

It’s expensive to operate, expensive to maintain, and only carries six infantrymen. Worst of all,

it’s a huge vehicle with little armor and packed with explosive TOW missiles. The idea of

mechanized vehicles is to carry infantrymen behind tanks until they are needed. However, the

US Army cannot field a vehicle to safely transport a dozen grunts, it must add every known

gadget to field a golden “fighting vehicle”. The M1A1 tank is a fighting vehicle, the Bradley is

an exploding coffin. The Bradley is almost 10 feet tall, but can only carry six grunts who are

trapped inside with explosive TOW missiles. During live fire tests of the Bradley, a hit usually

ignited a stored TOW causing massive explosions. The Bradley looks good in peacetime

exercises, including the invasion of Iraq, but it will not do well with an enemy who shoots back.

The Army has tried to counter criticism by putting extra armor on the upgraded Bradleys, but its

still a huge target with little armor slope. Upgraded Bradleys are weighted down with external

armor plates, but even these can be penetrated with light infantry anti-armor weapons.121

Crown’s General Dynamics also manufactures the Stryker troop carrier, which has been

associated with heavy losses in the Iraq war because of its vulnerability to rocket propelled grenades

and roadside bombs. Recent press accounts have emphasized the inadequate engineering that went

into the high-priced Stryker:

The Strykers are the first new combat vehicle in 20 years and a cornerstone in the Army’s

efforts to transform itself into a new, 21st-century fighting force. Critics say the eight-wheeled

vehicles each costing an average of $1.5 million may be a costly misstep on that path. The

Army recently discovered flaws in the Stryker’s ceramic composite armor and is racing to fix it.

The vehicle’s remote weapon systems can’t be fired accurately on the move, and soldiers must

get out of the vehicle to reload, exposing them to enemy fire.122

As the Iraq war ground on, Stryker losses increased because they had not been designed to deal

with the weapons deployed by the Iraqi national resistance:

A string of heavy losses from powerful roadside bombs has raised new questions about the

vulnerability of the Stryker, the Army’s troop-carrying vehicle hailed by supporters as the key

to a leaner, more mobile force. Since the Strykers went into action in violent Diyala province

north of Baghdad two months ago, losses of the vehicles have been rising steadily, U.S.

officials said. A single infantry company in Diyala lost five Strykers this month in less than a

week, according to soldiers familiar with the losses, who spoke on condition of anonymity

because they are not authorized to release the information. The overall number of Strykers lost

recently is classified. In one of the biggest hits, six American soldiers and a journalist were

killed when a huge bomb exploded beneath their Stryker…. It was the biggest one-day loss for

the battalion in more than two years.123

In order to stop these unsustainable losses, the Pentagon had to invest $22 billion to set up an

assembly line capable of turning out 1,200 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected trucks per month. But

it was not General Dynamics that provided these vehicles, but International Military and

Government, a subsidiary of Navistar International. These new vehicles with their characteristic Vshaped

hulls were able to reduce losses significantly. How many GIs died to pad Crown’s bottom

line? Look for more sweetheart contracts to go to General Dynamics in any future Obama regime,

independent of the merits, and look for the death rates among American troops to go up

accordingly.

276 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

OBAMA FRONTS FOR RIVERBOAT GAMBLERS

A few other components of Obama’s Chicago Mafia are also worth mentioning; these include

notorious low-wage employers and union busters like the Pritzker family, who have made their

fortune exploiting the underpaid Hispanic cleaning ladies in their hotel chains, and also gambling

interests inevitably redolent of organized crime:

The Chicago finance elite has been a major hub of Obama’s fundraising, led by Pritzker.

Another major figure is billionaire Neil G. Bluhm, a hotel and office building developer. But

Bluhm has posed a symbolic problem for Obama in Pennsylvania, site of an April 22 primary,

because his latest endeavor is a push to open a controversial casino along the Philadelphia

waterfront. “Bluhm’s path crossed Obama’s in 2003, when Bluhm pursued a gaming license for

a Chicago riverboat. That June, he gave the first $1,000 of what would become more than

$78,000 in contributions from him and his family. In 2006, Pennsylvania awarded Bluhm one

of two coveted Philadelphia gambling licenses. Last year, his partners in the project, called

Sugar House, made $2,300 donations to Obama, including nearly $50,000 from the Philadelphia

law firm Cozen O’Connor, which represents him in the deal. Bluhm said that the gaming

project “has got nothing to do with” his support for Obama and that the two have never

discussed it. “My interest in him is, I think he’s inspirational, I think he will enormously

improve our economy and our relations with other countries,” he said.124

The impudence of a riverboat gambler who says that he is paying for inspiration, not for political

influence and favors, is one of the many grim ironies of the Obama cash cartel.

THE JOSHUA SPEECH AND OBAMA’S MEGALOMANIA

During the course of 2007, Obama began to experience his delusions of grandeur in public. As

he basked in the adulation of his adoring and fawning coterie, his tendency towards megalomania

became exacerbated. From this point on, Obama’s megalomania was destined to emerge in the

wake of every significant uptick in his march towards power. A foundational document for the

analysis of Obama as a case study in megalomania is provided by the speech he delivered to the

commemoration of the Selma, Alabama voting rights protest on March 4, 2007. Here Obama is

prepared to concede that Martin Luther King and others of his generation can be compared to the

prophetic figure of Moses in the Old Testament, but at the same time he demands that he, the young

whelp and upstart, be recognized as the new Joshua, the lieutenant of Moses and the civic organizer

destined to lead black America into the promised land. In reality, as we have attempted to show,

Obama must be considered a continuation of the anti-Martin Luther King tradition inaugurated

when the Ford Foundation massively funded black power demagogues hostile to Martin Luther

King during the last years of King’s life. Note Obama’s ritual nods to his teachers of the Reverend

Jeremiah Wright cabal:

But I got a letter from a friend of some of yours named Reverend Otis Moss Jr. in Cleveland,

and his son, Otis Moss III is the Pastor at my church and I must send greetings from Dr.

Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. but I got a letter giving me encouragement and saying how proud he was

that I had announced and encouraging me to stay true to my ideals and my values and not to be

fearful. And he said, if there’s some folks out there who are questioning whether or not you

should run, just tell them to look at the story of Joshua because you’re part of the Joshua

generation. So I just want to talk a little about Moses and Aaron and Joshua, because we are in

the presence today of a lot of Moseses. We’re in the presence today of giants whose shoulders

VII: The Hope Pope and his Trilateral Money Machine 277

we stand on, people who battled, not just on behalf of African-Americans but on behalf of all of

America; that battled for America’s soul, that shed blood , that endured taunts and torment and

in some cases gave — torment and in some cases gave the full measure of their devotion. Like

Moses, they challenged Pharaoh, the princes, powers who said that some are atop and others are

at the bottom, and that’s how it’s always going to be. I’m here because somebody marched. I’m

here because you all sacrificed for me. I stand on the shoulders of giants. I thank the Moses

generation; but we’ve got to remember, now, that Joshua still had a job to do. As great as Moses

was, despite all that he did, leading a people out of bondage, he didn’t cross over the river to see

the Promised Land. God told him your job is done. You’ll see it. You’ll be at the mountain top

and you can see what I’ve promised. What I’ve promised to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. You

will see that I’ve fulfilled that promise but you won’t go there. We’re going to leave it to the

Joshua generation to make sure it happens. There are still battles that need to be fought; some

rivers that need to be crossed. Like Moses, the task was passed on to those who might not have

been as deserving, might not have been as courageous, find themselves in front of the risks that

their parents and grandparents and great grandparents had taken. That doesn’t mean that they

don’t still have a burden to shoulder, that they don’t have some responsibilities. The previous

generation, the Moses generation, pointed the way. They took us 90% of the way there. We still

got that 10% in order to cross over to the other side. So the question, I guess, that I have today

is what’s called of us in this Joshua generation? What do we do in order to fulfill that legacy; to

fulfill the obligations and the debt that we owe to those who allowed us to be here today? Now,

I don’t think we could ever fully repay that debt. Moses told the Joshua generation; don’t forget

where you came from. I worry sometimes, that the Joshua generation in its success forgets

where it came from. Thinks it doesn’t have to make as many sacrifices. Thinks that the very

height of ambition is to make as much money as you can, to drive the biggest car and have the

biggest house and wear a Rolex watch and get your own private jet, get some of that Oprah

money. And I think that’s a good thing. There’s nothing wrong with making money, but if you

know your history, then you know that there is a certain poverty of ambition involved in simply

striving just for money. Materialism alone will not fulfill the possibilities of your existence.

You have to fill that with something else. You have to fill it with the golden rule. You’ve got to

fill it with thinking about others. And if we know our history, then we will understand that that

is the highest mark of service. Second thing that the Joshua generation needs to understand is

that the principles of equality that were set forth and were battled for have to be fought each and

every day. It is not a one-time thing. I was remarking at the unity breakfast on the fact that the

single most significant concern that this Justice Department under this administration has had

with respect to discrimination has to do with affirmative action. That they have basically spent

all their time worrying about colleges and universities around the country that are given a little

break to young African-Americans and Hispanics to make sure that they can go to college,

too.125

Obama is doubtless familiar with the Strauss-Howe theory of generations, which his campaign

uses for profiling his dupes and gulls among generation Xers and the younger set.126 If so, Obama

has misread Strauss and Howe, since he and his ilk do not have the characteristics of a modern

Joshua, but rather must be classed among the worshipers of the golden calf, the faction that gave

Moses so much trouble as he attempted to lead the Israelites to the Promised Land. Obama’s ritual

acknowledgment of the foundation-funded racist provocateur Jeremiah Wright — a figure not of

austerity, but sybaritic hedonism — and the Ford Foundation grant recipient Otis Moss III only

make his membership in the golden calf congregation unmistakable for all. This was also the

occasion when Obama attempted to convince the Selma audience that he had been conceived by his

278 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

parents, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham, because they had been inspired by the fervor

following the “Bloody Sunday” voting rights demonstration that was commemorated March 4.

“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama,”

he said, “because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack

Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don’t tell me I’m

not coming home to Selma, Alabama” The problem was that, as we have seen, Obama was born in

1961, and the Selma march occurred four years later, in 1965. The New York Times reported that

when the senator was asked about the discrepancy later that day, he clarified: “I meant the whole

civil rights movement.

OBAMA AS THE CONSUMMATE DIVIDER

The Joshua speech is an important document because it illustrates yet another dimension of

Obama’s efficacy as a divider and a splitter of the American population so as to leave them open to

further attacks by the financier oligarchy. Obama says he wants to bring the American population

together, but in practice the net effect of his well-financed presence, backed up by the formidable

Trilateral-Bilderberg network, has been to divide the American people six ways to Sunday. Obama

divides white against black, black against Hispanic, black against Asian, men against women, and

elitists and affluent suburbanites against blue-collar workers. With his spurious and self-serving

generational analysis, he can also play old against young in a generational conflict which can

further weaken the capacity of the American people to resist what the Trilateral financiers have in

store. Obama thus emerges as a fiendishly clever deployment to shatter the American people along

lines of race, national origin, religion, gender, class, and generation — quite an achievement for his

controllers. Bush the younger, by comparison, is a paragon of national unity. This is why the

Trilateraloids were willing to pay top dollar to finance such a mediocrity and attempt to make the

entire national debate revolve around his vapid and vacuous personality. One of the included

benefits was the likelihood that the Democratic Party would shatter along its fairly obvious fault

lines in the aftermath of a catastrophic Obama regime.

THE RACE CARD YET AGAIN

In the course of the Texas primary, it became obvious that Obama was pursuing what some

called a “two-track strategy” in his rallies. The candidate of authenticity had two distinct stump

speeches, one for black audiences and one for white audiences.

As he campaigns in the Lone Star State, Barack Obama has mostly stuck to his standard stump

speech about the economy, health care and Iraq. But when he spoke before a mostly black audience

in the coastal, working-class town of Beaumont, he talked about Popeye’s fried chicken and

individual responsibility. “I have a nine- and a six-year-old daughter, so I know how hard it is to

get kids to eat properly,” Obama told the audience of about 2000 as he broached the subject of

health care at a town hall-style meeting Thursday. “But I also know that if we are, if folks are just

letting kids drink eight sodas a day which some parents do. Or you know, even a bag of potato

chips for lunch or Popeye’s for breakfast –ya’ll have Popeye’s down in Beaumont? All right. I

know some of you all, you get that cold Popeye’s out for breakfast! I know! That’s why you all

laughing. I caught you out. You can’t do that! Children have to have proper nutrition.” The

audience, many of whom waited in line five hours or more for a chance to see Obama, cheered,

laughed and gave thunderous applause to the remarks, which he peppered with phrases straight from

VII: The Hope Pope and his Trilateral Money Machine 279

a Texas Southern Baptist church. “Can I get an amen here?” Obama said to the cheering crowd as

he compelled them to turn the TV off at home and make sure their kids hit the books. But these

risks did not resurface later at a rally in Fort Worth, where the audience was decidedly more racially

mixed and in a higher income bracket. Gone was the preacher-like cadence. He talked about health

care and education, but only made a passing reference to individual responsibility. Political

analysts say Obama is using a dual approach to win Tuesday’s primaries in Texas and Ohio and the

Democratic nomination beyond that — a race-neutral, rousing stump speech for most audiences and

a sermon like dialogue reserved for lower-income black audiences. “I called it a two-track

strategy,” said University of Maryland political science professor Ron Walters, who has written

extensively about blacks. “This requires two different kinds of politics and Barack Obama has been

able to synthesize both of them.” (Susan Ferrecchio, Washington Examiner, March 3, 2008)

THE MEDIA SWOON FOR BARKY, THE HOPE POPE

One of the things that Obama’s money machine could be used to mobilize was of course the

fawning adulation of those press whores who populated the controlled corporate media of this

unhappy nation. Here is a sample from the middle phase of the 2008 primaries. Notice how the

author tries to establish the unique world historical importance of Obama, and then goes on to

compare him to John F. Kennedy, before deciding to throw in Lincoln as well. We can only guess

how many of these hack writers were getting paid by the word for such moronic hyperbole:

The tides of history are rising higher and faster these days. Read them right and ride them, or be

crushed. And then along comes Barack Obama, with the kinds of gifts that appear in politics but

once every few generations. There is a sense of dignity, even majesty, about him, and

underneath that ease lies a resolute discipline. It’s not just that he is eloquent — with that ability

to speak both to you and to speak for you — it’s that he has a quality of thinking and

intellectual and emotional honesty that is extraordinary. I first learned of Barack Obama from a

man who was at the highest level of George W. Bush’s political organization through two

presidential campaigns. He described the first-term senator from Illinois as “a walking hope

machine.” All this was made clearer by the contrast with Hillary Clinton, a capable and

personable senator who has run the kind of campaign that reminds us of what makes us so

discouraged about our politics. Her campaign certainly proved her experience didn’t count for

much: She was a bad manager and a bad strategist who naturally and easily engaged in the

politics of distraction, trivialization and personal attack. The similarities between John Kennedy

and Barack Obama come to mind easily: the youth, the magnetism, the natural grace, the

eloquence, the wit, the intelligence, the hope of a new generation. But it might be more to the

point to view Obama as Lincolnesque in his own origins, his sobriety and what history now

demands. (Jann S. Wenner, “A New Hope,” Rolling Stone, March 20, 2008)127

The hysteria of this encomium was in inverse proportion to Obama’s substantive record. After

spending 2005 and 2006 pretending to be a senator, but in reality planning his presidential

campaign, the Illinois Messiah dropped out of his legislative functions completely, missing virtually

every vote. According to one press account, Obama had missed “the most votes of any Democratic

presidential hopeful in the Senate over the last two months, including a vote on an Iran resolution he

has blasted Sen. Hillary Clinton for supporting.” The Illinois Democrat had missed nearly 80

percent of all votes after September 2007. This was a great advantage, since no one could really

know what he stood for, if anything.

280 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

REUNION OF CARTER-ERA TRILATERALS TO SUPPORT OBAMA

Given Obama’s Trilateral-Rockefeller pedigree, it was not surprising to see that the supporters of

the Messiah’s campaign resembled nothing so much as a reunion of retreads from the catastrophic

Jimmy Carter regime of 1977 to 1981, an administration which had set in motion the disastrous

Great U-Turn of the United States towards deindustrialization, a low wage economy, pessimism,

and collapse. Now the Carter veterans gathered around their new clone, Obama. One of these was

Paul Adolph Volcker, the Trilateral boss of the Federal Reserve who had placed the United States

firmly on the course of deindustrialization and decay. Volcker was clearly overcome with

admiration for Obama:

“After 30 years in government, serving under five Presidents of both parties and chairing two

non-partisan Commissions on the Public Service, [said Volcker,] I have been reluctant to

engage in political campaigns. The time has come to overcome that reluctance,” Mr. Volcker

said …. “However, it is not the current turmoil in markets or the economic uncertainties that

have impelled my decision. Rather, it is the breadth and depth of challenges that face our nation

at home and abroad. Those challenges demand a new leadership and a fresh approach.” He

concluded: “It is only Barack Obama, in his person, in his ideas, in his ability to understand and

to articulate both our needs and our hopes that provide the potential for strong and fresh

leadership. That leadership must begin here in America but it can also restore needed

confidence in our vision, our strength, and our purposes right around the world.”128

This is from the man who succeeded in doing what Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, and Mao failed to do,

that is to say laying waste to the industrial might of the United States with interest-rate policies so

disruptive that they outclassed even nuclear weapons. Volcker’s endorsement was a real feather in

Obama’s cap.

President Carter himself had signaled a preference for Obama early on, but waited until the

primaries were about over before he formally endorsed Sen. Obama, D-Ill., after the South Dakota

and Montana primaries. ‘“The fact is the Obama people already know they have my vote when the

polls close tonight,” President Carter told The Associated Press earlier in the day.’129

The list would not be complete without the current patriarch of the Rockefeller family, John D.

Rockefeller IV, who has increasingly taken over from the now decrepit David Rockefeller, the last

surviving member of the Rockefeller Brothers generation.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) endorsed fellow Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) …. Rockefeller,

chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Obama’s position on the Iraq war in 2002 was

partially behind his decision to support the Illinois senator. “The indisputable fact is Barack Obama

was right about Iraq when many of us were wrong,” Rockefeller said in a statement. “It was a tough

call and the single greatest national security question, and mistake, of our time.”130

BRZEZINSKI’S GLOWING ENDORSEMENT OF OBAMA

The most important endorsement of all was of course that of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the cofounder

of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller 35 years ago, and the person whose criminal

energy has only grown with the passing years when it comes to his lifelong obsession of destroying

Russia. Brzezinski was effusive in his praise of the Illinois Senator:

Obama “recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition

of America’s role in the world,” Brzezinski remarked during an interview on Bloomberg

VII: The Hope Pope and his Trilateral Money Machine 281

Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt.” “Obama is clearly more effective and has the

upper hand,” Brzezinski said. “He has a sense of what is historically relevant, and what is

needed from the United States in relationship to the world.” Brzezinski dismissed Hillary

Clinton as totally inadequate: “Being a former first lady doesn’t prepare you to be president.

President Truman didn’t have much experience before he came to office. Neither did John

Kennedy,” Brzezinski said. Clinton’s foreign-policy approach is “very conventional,”

Brzezinski added “I don’t think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago.”

“There is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs,” he continued.

“And Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to

change the nature of America’s relationship with the world.” (Bloomberg, “Zbigniew

Brzezinski Endorses Barack Obama,” Friday, August 24, 2007)

Serious students of history immediately recognized that this last point was an indispensable part

of classic fascist political doctrine; see the final chapter of this book.

BRZEZINSKI ATTEMPTS TO CAMOUFLAGE HIS DOMINANCE OF OBAMA

The columnist Colbert I. King of the Katherine Meyer Graham stable complained about a winter

2008 report in Newsweek magazine that the Clinton campaign was attacking Zbigniew Brzezinski to

get at Obama.

“In a January conference call with American Jewish organization leaders, the magazine reports,

Clinton senior adviser Ann Lewis attempted to denigrate Obama’s pro-Israel credentials by

pointing out that Zbigniew Brzezinski is Obama’s “chief foreign policy adviser.” Brzezinski,

Newsweek noted, “has a reputation that is close to toxic in the American Jewish community.”’

That sounded fair enough; Brzezinski was after all the father of modern Islamic fundamentalism

and the architect of the Khomeini regime in Iran. But for the devotees of Obama, any criticism

is ipso facto illegitimate. Colbert I. King took the occasion to whine: “it mattered not to

Clinton’s clan that Brzezinski is not a key Obama advisor, that Obama has said he has had

lunch with Brzezinski only once or that they have exchanged e-mails perhaps three times.

Linking Obama to someone who is anathema to the Jewish community was the point to be

scored — even if it meant committing a foul.” (Washington Post, March 1, 2008)

Colbert I. King is a liar. As we show in this book, Zbigniew Brzezinski is more than an adviser

to Obama — he is his controller, and the developer of the entire profile which Obama is using to

run for president. Unless and until Obama abandons his obsessive secrecy and tells the full story of

his years at Columbia University, we will persist in the suspicion that Obama was in fact recruited

by Zbigniew Brzezinski at Columbia in 1981-1983 as a member of the left CIA stable of

foundation-funded political assets. As far as Obama’s implausible denials are concerned, they leave

the door wide open to the obvious possibility that Brzezinski gives Obama his orders at breakfast or

dinner, or that he gives his instructions to the candidate by instant messaging or by phone. Henry

Kissinger is famous for never giving the clients of his influence peddling business even a single

scrap of paper with writing on it; maybe Brzezinski operates with the same kind of secrecy. As we

show elsewhere in this book, there were times during the Carter administration when Brzezinski had

to be kept off the TV networks and hidden in the closet; maybe Zbig has figured out that if you are

Dr. Strangelove it is best to keep a low profile. But the irrefutable fact remains that when

Brzezinski introduced Obama on the occasion of his first major foreign policy speech, the Polish

revanchist was unquestionably billed as the campaign’s senior foreign policy adviser.

282 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

BRZEZINSKI A GROWING LIABILITY FOR OBAMA

Thanks in part to the work of the present writer, the Brzezinski connection became a serious

embarrassment to Obama, just as the Polish revanchist (in 1980 arguably the most unpopular

Democratic official since LBJ) had been a huge albatross around the neck of Carter. Here are some

relevant excerpts from a transcript of the National Public Radio program “To the Point,” in which

the Jerusalem Post correspondent Caroline Glick and the Obama Middle East advisor Mel Levine131

comment on who is actually running the senator’s foreign policy in that part of the world:

Warren Olney: (directed to Caroline Glick) You have expressed very severe reservations about

Senator Obama and have reservations in regards to his stance on Israel. In particular his

association with some of his advisors and to Jeremiah Wright. Can you speak to some of the

concerns you have about Senator Obama.

Caroline Glick: Senator Obama surrounds himself with people who are overtly either anti

Semitic like Rev. Wright, anti-white like Rev. Wright, anti-American like Rev. Wright, or

simply and viscerally anti-Israel like Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Robert Malley, and Samantha

Power his former advisor, and then there are people who are messianically anti-Israel like Dan

Cursor, the former US Ambassador to Israel and Egypt. And each time then it’s pointed out to

him (Obama) that these people have made statements and followed policies that are inherently

hostile to Israel, he says, “Well, these aren’t reflective of my views.” And the fact is, among all

of these people there are no counter balancing force among Barack’s advisors or friends or Rev.

Wright’s that is supportive of Israel. So, I find the whole perception that he can say, I wasn’t at

church then, or the fact that Zbig was in Syria the same week that [Hezbollah leader] Imad

Mugniyah was assassinated in Damascus, and there is no one on his team that is different from

Brzezinski on Israel, so it is all but impossible not to conclude that views of ALL of his

advisors are reflective of his views.

Host: Mel Levine would you distinguish yourself from Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski? And to what

extent is Zbig an advisor to Barack Obama?

Mel Levine: I, I, ah, I, ah, um, I’m speechless after what I heard from Ms. Glick. My views on

Israel are very clear to anyone I have ever worked with in Congress. I am one of his Middle

East Advisors and my views are very different from Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Zbigniew

Brzezinski is NOT one his foreign policy advisors, nor one of his advisors at all. This really

points out the nature of the type of distortions that have been leveled to Senator Obama for

quite some time. And what Ms. Glick has said is completely false.” (To the Point, NPR, April

21, 2008)

Obama’s attempted sleight of hand was obvious to the world: Moscow News referred on April 3,

2008 to “...Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is trying to conceal his involvement with Barack Obamas

team.” It is worth repeating that, in the wake of the Samantha Power “monster” flap, Zbiggy had

been billed in published reports as an advisor to Obama: ‘In response to a request for reaction to her

resignation earlier today, the office of Brzezinski—another of Obama’s foreign policy advisers—

relayed the following statement: “I think an expression of regret for using an inappropriate

description of Senator Clinton should have sufficed. And I don’t think she should have resigned.”’132

Along with Brzezinski, a key to the entire Obama machine was Soros. House Speaker Nancy

Pelosi, an abject failure who stood long ago have been ousted and sent to the back benches,

distinguished herself during the primaries by her treachery against Senator Clinton on the question

of sexist and misogynistic propaganda favoring Obama. Pelosi pretended to be neutral, but it was

VII: The Hope Pope and his Trilateral Money Machine 283

clear that her heart beat only for Barky. In addition to her spontaneous ultra-left sympathies, it was

clear that Pelosi was also acting as a servant of Soros, who had one of his top operatives in Pelosi’s

office:

Let us connect the dots. In February, 2007, Nancy Pelosi hired Joseph Onek as her Chief

Counsel. Mr. Onek is also a chief policy advisor for the Open Society Institute, funded by none

other than George Soros. You may be curious about Felix Rohatyn. Mr. Rohatyn is a not only a

major financial backer of Nancy Pelosi but he is one of her top economics advisors. Mr. Obama

has called for the formation of a National Infrastructure Investment Bank (NIRB). This is a

derivative of the Rohatyn-Rudman National Investment Corporation (NIC) first proposed in

2005. Essentially, Mr. Obama is a surrogate for a private investment model controlled by

George Soros and those that subscribe to his world monetary monopoly model. The NIRB is

nothing more than a fascist economic model.’ (noquarterusa.net, June 30, 2008)

Indeed: the NIRB, as Bruce Marshall has shown in Obama — The Postmodern Coup would

employ the methods of Hjalmar Schacht and his infamous Mefo bills to create a post-crash bubble

in the wake of the current breakdown crisis.

SMALL DONORS AS A SCREEN FOR FATCAT BUNDLERS

In June 2008, after the Democratic primaries were over, and Obama had less need of the petit

bourgeois good government activists who are so important for winning Democratic caucuses, he

announced with consummate cynicism that he would not accept the restrictions inherent in public

funding for his fall campaign. With exquisite demagogy, Obama and his followers argued that they

are fundraising model had already fulfilled the need to democratize campaign finance contributions

by mobilizing so many millions of small donors to give their modest pittances and widow’s mites

for the greater glory of the Perfect Master. We have already seen that the real secret of the Obama

campaign was bundling on an unprecedented scale under the cover of Obama’s cynical “no

lobbyists” propaganda. A more granular analysis of Obama’s fundraising revealed that the role of

the small donors as compared to the corporate bundlers had been consistently and systematically

overstated by himself and his campaign flacks. One researcher reported

…that Obama received more than two-thirds (68 percent) of his first quarter 2007 fundraising

total “from donations of $1000 or more.” Obama has “played up populist themes of [campaign

finance] reform,” trumpeting his ‘“large number of small donations” and claiming (in the

Senator’s words) to be “launch[ing]a fundraising drive that isn’t about dollars.” But his

astonishing first-quarter campaign [2007] finance haul of $25.7 million included $17.5 million

from “big donors” ($1000 and up) - a sum higher than the much more genuinely populist John

Edwards’ total take ($14 million) from all donors. According to Chicago Sun Times columnist

Lynn Sweet: “Obama talks about transforming politics and touts the donations of ‘ordinary’

people to his campaign, but a network of more than 100 elite Democratic ‘bundlers’ is raising

millions of dollars for his White House bid. The Obama campaign prefers the emphasis to be on

the army of small donors who are giving — and raising — money for Obama. In truth, though,

there are two parallel narratives — and the other is that Obama is also heavily reliant on

wealthy and well-connected Democrats. ‘Bundlers’ are people who solicit their networks for

donations and, at the elite giving levels, often get some assistance from campaign fund-raising

professionals. Each of the 138 Obama bundlers promised to raise at least $50,000, and many are

from Chicago, not surprising since Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker is the national finance

chairwoman. Among those from the city are major Democratic donors Lou Sussman, who was

284 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

John Kerry’s chief of fund-raising in 2004; Betty Lu [Klutznick] Saltzman, one of Obama’s

biggest boosters; personal-injury attorney Bob Clifford; Capri Capital CEO Quintin Primo;

activists Marilyn Katz and Michael Bauer, Ariel Capital’s John Rogers and Mellody Hobson.

Hollywood moguls David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg; a string of Harvard Law School

friends; Broadway producer Margo Lion, and Bill Kennard, managing director of the Carlyle

Group, are among the other bundlers.” The hypocrisy is many-sided. Last week Sweet reported

that Obama had received large donations from at least eight executives at Island Def Jam, a hiphop

recording firm that markets rap artists Obama has accused of “degrading their sisters” with

sexist slurs. (Paul Street, “Big (Deceptive) Talk About ‘Small Donations,’” Zmag)133

In this interpretation, the swarms of small contributors function as a kind of screening operation

for the main force units of the Obama money cartel, who are the rapacious corporate bundlers.

When Obama finally turned away from public funding, many commentators joined Obama in his

cynicism, speculating that this whole issue had simply been a smokescreen for Democratic attacks

on their better funded Republican rivals in the first place. Prominent among the cynics was, as

usual, the oligarchical apologist David Brooks:

The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform

only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got

an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The

Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial

lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and

casino developer. (David Brooks, New York Times, June 20, 2008)134

RUPERT MURDOCH SUPPORTS OBAMA, LATE MAY 2008

Obama is intrinsically a creature of what may be called in general terms the center-left side of

the US-UK financier establishment. This wing of the banking community is grouped around names

like David Rockefeller, George Soros, Robert Rubin, Felix Rohatyn, and Goldman Sachs. Its

political spokesmen include James Baker III, former Congressman Lee Hamilton, Pelosi, the

Kennedy family, and others. During 2007, it had been possible to distinguish another faction which

could be associated with the names of George Shultz, Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair, and various

right-wing figures in Wall Street. During the primary season, it was significant that many of the

revelations which so damaged Obama came from O’Reilly, Hannity, and other commentators

employed by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel. It was therefore significant when archreactionary

Rupert Murdoch announced that he too was smitten by the Obama craze.

“We’re on the verge of a complete phenomenon,” Murdoch said. “Politicians are at an all-time

low and are despised by 80% of the public, and then you’ve got a candidate trying to put

himself out above it all. He’s become a rock star. It’s fantastic. “There are a lot of problems.

The education system in this country is a total disgrace.” Murdoch heaped praise on Obama,

saying he was a “highly intelligent man with a great record at Harvard”, but stopped short of a

full personal endorsement because he wanted “to meet him personally.” The Obama

phenomenon and undoubtedly the recession and everyone getting hurt... the average American

family today is really financially hurting and that all bodes well for him,” he said. “He may not

carry Florida because the Jewish people are suspicious of him, and so are Hispanics. But he’ll

probably add Ohio and others. He will probably win.” Despite saying he was a friend of John

McCain, Murdoch said the Republican presidential nominee had “a lot of problems.” “McCain

has been in congress a long time and you’ve got to make too many compromises,” he said.

VII: The Hope Pope and his Trilateral Money Machine 285

“What does he really stand for? He’s a patriot - he’s a friend of mine and a really decent guy -

but he’s unpredictable. “[He] doesn’t know much about the economy and - I say this

sympathetically - I think he has a lot of problems.” (London Guardian, May 30, 2008)

In July, billionaire oligarch Warren Buffett participated in Obama’s meeting of economists and

financiers along with Paul Adolph Volcker, Robert Rubin, and a few token labor leaders. Now,

there could be no doubt whatsoever that Obama was indeed the consensus candidate of the Wall

Street financier establishment and its British cousins. This provided thinking persons with the most

powerful motivation to mobilize against Obama.

THE OBAMA MONEY MACHINE SPUTTERS, JULY 2008

Yet, Obama’s path to financial supremacy was not quite that simple. Senator Clinton had

mobilized significant numbers of wealthy contributors. Many of these persons of considerable

means had been thoroughly antagonized by the scurrilous sexism and misogyny of the Obama

campaign. But, his vision clouded by his own rising megalomania, Obama assumed that at the end

of the primary season, these traditional Democratic Party financial backers would fall into line and

filled his coffers for the fall. A key turning point was a meeting for Democratic fatcats at the

Mayflower Hotel on K Street in Washington, where Obama held forth behind closed doors before a

group of deeply suspicious Hillary backers. Accounts of what had gone on in this tense and heated

meeting filtered out only gradually through the media:

“I would say he was pretty underwhelming,” a longtime Democratic activist said several days

after he and some 200 other big-money supporters of Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential

campaign met with the victor, Barack Obama, in Washington on June 26. … the tone of what

really happened inside the locked ballroom was quite different once Obama and Hillary Clinton

had their cordial say and the floor was opened for questions. The first “questioner,” an angry

woman from New York, demanded a roll call of presidential preference at the Denver

convention. Next came another distraught woman who declared that Clinton’s candidacy was

the victim of “misogyny.” One participant told me, “This is as tough a crowd as Obama is going

to face the whole campaign.” But, in the opinion of the Clintonites, he did not open the door to

his campaign, because he asked nothing of them. Big-money Democrats who could have

expected to be named U.S. ambassadors by a President Hillary Clinton realized that they would

get nothing from a President Obama. The train had left the station, and they were not aboard.135

Any machine pol knew that patronage handouts could be used to cement an effective political

apparatus, but Obama apparently had not even learned that.

SNOBBISH, ARROGANT, AND BORING: OBAMA DEMANDS TRIBUTE

Obama had promised a new politics of hope and change, but in practice he was delivering a bitter

and vindictive rebuff to Hillary’s supporters. The megalomania exhibited in an earlier stage in the

infamous Joshua speech was now taking over more and more of the Perfect Master’s personality,

causing him to commit stupid and easily avoidable political blunders. Here is another insider

account of Obama’s wretched performance at this critical meeting:

‘Hillary, ever the good trooper and team player, gave Barack an intro to her big dollar donors

and an opportunity to start the healing. But Barack continues to play the role of petulant bore.

He gave an uninspired, mechanical speech. The charm exhibited on the campaign trail that left

women swooning, was missing in action. Folks from the Hillary camp described the speech as

286 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

snobbish, arrogant, and boring. But it was Barack’s response to questions from Hillary’s

supporters that produced sour bile.

1. What about the Vice President slot? The questioner told Barack that if he named Hillary as

the Vice President that the Democrats would be in a position to own the White House for the

next 16 years. Barack said nothing to give Clinton supporters hope that he would consider the

Senator from New York.

2. Will you help Hillary retire her debt? On this one Barack said he had written a check for

$2300 (According to the AP, Michelle gave a check as well. A good first step.) but that his real

interest was getting access to the phone lists of Hillary’s donors and contacts. Hillary supporters

at the gathering sat on their hands, their checkbooks, and their lists.

3. What will you do to stop the sexist smear of Hillary? The questioner noted that Barack did

nothing to quell the rampant sexist attacks on Hillary during the campaign and that she

continues to be brutalized. Barack said, “Yes, I know. But there is another woman who has been

brutalized as well. The healing will take a long time to fix.” So there you have it. No vision. No

magnanimous gesture. It is still all about Barack and Michelle. Most of the Hillary supporters

left unassuaged. Instead of a promise from Barack to tell his supporters to stop the attacks on

Hillary and her supporters, he essentially put his hands in his pockets and shrugged his

shoulders.’ (Larry Johnson, “Breaking News: Obama Bombs,” June 26, 2008)136

As the primary season progressed, Obama would show himself a weaker and weaker candidate,

and more and more anemic as a vote-getter. The same thing occurred with Obama’s fundraising,

which has relentlessly declined from the peak hysteria among the lemming legions which was

registered in February, 2008. In that month, Obama had raked in $55 million, an all-time record for

any US presidential campaign in a single calendar month. But in March, as the Reverend Wright

scandal began to hit, this had gone down to $40 million. In April, as Obama’s blue-collar problems

multiplied and the Bill Ayers-Bernardine Dohrn scandal surfaced, Obama declined further to $31

million. In May, as Obama was being widely pronounced as a new George McGovern, the creaking

money machine was only capable of bringing in $22 million — only a half a million or so more

than McCain, who was supposed to be notoriously weak in this department.

All in all, it was estimated that Obama’s fundraising take in the second quarter of 2008 had come

in 70% lower than he had targeted. There were reports that Obama was running out of money that

he could spend before the beginning of the fall campaign around September 1. His burn rate must

have been staggering. In the meantime, even the notoriously pro-Obama Newsweek poll plummeted

from a lead of 15 points for the Perfect Master down to an advantage of a measly three, with the

Gallup tracking poll showing a statistical dead heat with Obama ahead by two.

States like Ohio and Pennsylvania had seen Obama outspend Senator Clinton by margins that

were variously estimated at three to one, four to one, and five to one. By July, McCain was ahead

of Barky in a Gallup-USA poll. During the primaries, Obama had spent about $285 million just to

eke out an outright loss in the popular vote to Senator Clinton. His handlers had boasted at the time

he dropped out of public financing in June 2008 that he could raise ‘hundreds of millions of dollars

over the next few months,” including $100 million in June alone.137

In reality, it was little more than half that. Obama’s hard right turn and multiple flip-flops on

issues from the Iraq war to FISA wiretapping to NAFTA to the death penalty to gun control and the

looming privatization of Social Security had begun to disillusion even some of his most fanatical

lemming legions.

CHAPTER VIII: “OUR SOULS ARE BROKEN” –

“FEEL, DON’T THINK! BE VISCERAL!” – MICHELLE

OBAMA, POSTMODERN FASCIST IDEOLOGUE

“Mrs. Obama’s statement is nothing less than a renunciation of democracy and an embrace of

fascism. The basic idea of liberty is that people have a natural right to live their lives as usual

and to be uninvolved and uninformed. And they certainly have a right to expect that their

government will butt out of their souls.” - (Caroline Glick, “Obama the Savior,” Jerusalem Post,

April 22, 2008)

As fascism’s founding father, Benito Mussolini, once said: …”Think with your blood.”138

“Denken mit eurem Blute!” - “Think with your blood!” - Hitler

One of the slogans of the Nazi S.A. was “Think with your blood.” We don’t need that.139

“Think with your blood.” – NSDAP slogan.

On January 31 of this year, the oaf Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most

indignant tone of voice to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions

to FISA. In a 10-minute “Special Comment,” the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to

“retroactively immunize corporate criminals,” and said that telecom immunity is “an ex post facto

law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and

blatant collaboration with [Bush’s] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy

guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass

email.” Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a “shameless, breathless, literally textbook

example of Fascism — the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no

government.” Noting the numerous telecom lobbyists connected to the Bush administration,

Olbermann said: “This is no longer just a farce in which protecting telecoms is dressed up as

protecting us from terrorists’ conference cells. Now it begins to look like the bureaucrats of the

Third Reich, trying to protect the Krupp family, the industrial giants, re-writing the laws of

Germany for their benefit.140

Of course, this was before Obama voted in favor of the rotten compromise with FISA in June

2008. But the important idea here is the thesis about the nature of fascism that Olbermann is trying

to sell. In a later chapter, we will show that the Obama campaign is the closest thing to a classic

1919-1922 fascist movement that we have ever seen here in the United States. Fascism, we must

always remember, is not a top-down phenomenon; it starts with a radical, anti-establishment protest

movement with many grievances – a movement that masquerades as an authentic, grass-roots,

bottom-up social phenomenon, and hides the fact that it has been funded and created by bankers.

The movement centers around a demagogic mob orator who makes utopian promises about

overcoming despair and restoring the position of the nation in the world by refurbishing the

mystical unity of the people. The fascist movement struggles for power by striving to weaken and

destroy political parties, trade unions, sports groups, clubs, publications, media networks, and all

other institutions which might provide support for resistance against fascism.

Later on, if it is successful, the fascist mass movement will transform itself into a totalitarian and

dictatorial regime, often liquidating its own plebeian and populist tendencies in the process. As the

fascist regime consolidates and solidifies, it gradually comes to resemble an old-style, top-down

dictatorship or bureaucratic-authoritarian regime. But the point is that, without the destruction of

288 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

opposition institutions by the fascist mass movement, the top-down dictatorship could never have

emerged. The view peddled by such figures as Olbermann is that fascism occurs when an

authoritarian government becomes more and more oppressive, until it can be called fascist. This is

completely anti-historical and fails to explain why a new term of fascism had to be coined just after

World War I.

In the United States today, the prevalent understanding of fascist ideology is impoverished in the

extreme. If people know anything at all about fascism, they are likely to think of Hitler, and to

define him as someone who was a dictator, an anti-Semite, a genocidalist, and a military aggressor.

But this leaves out the whole question of fascist ideology and of how a fascist movement could

exercise mass appeal and take power in the first place. One of the purposes of this book is to fill in

some of these blank spaces. Here we will be concerned with a few characteristic points of

traditional and typical fascist ideology as they are reflected in the speeches and activities of

Michelle Obama, who has emerged as a clear case of fascist ideology in her own right.

The Obamas are like a pair of onions: they have several layers of built-in deception, and several

of these layers must be stripped away to get anywhere near reality. But of the two, it is Michelle

who displays her ideology more openly. As the present writer concluded in January-February 2008,

and as the Jerusalem Post has noted more recently, Mrs. Obama’s ideology, as expressed on

numerous occasions and in various forms, is in a very strict technical sense fascism. Not fascism in

the sense of the all-purpose epithet thrown at adversaries by superficial media whores like

Olbermann, but fascism as the belief structure actually embraced and preached by fascist leaders

such as the young Mussolini between 1919 in 1922, when the fascist movements were just getting

started. It is in this sense that Mrs. Obama qualifies without any doubt as a fascist. We should also

take the warning of the Jerusalem Post quite seriously. There is no doubt that the Jews have

suffered greatly as a result of European fascism. We should therefore take such a warning

seriously, and carefully examine whether it is true. The finding here is that Michelle qualifies as the

most open fascist ideologue yet seen in an American presidential campaign. But since it is left

fascism, more like the young Mussolini rather than the mature and consolidated dictator, the left

liberals are quite incapable of noticing this critical fact.

MICHELLE OBAMA: BROKEN SOULS

The principal document illustrating Michelle Obama’s fascist world outlook is the standard

stump speech which she delivered during the primaries and caucuses of January and February in

particular. It was in this phase that the messianic and utopian elements of the Obama campaign

were most pronounced, and Michelle appears to have been encouraged to reveal at least something

of her actual worldview over audiences. Through her words, Michelle was doubtless

communicating strong elements of subliminal and subconscious irrationalism to the excitable

lemming legions and Kool-Aid cultists who were her audience. She was suggesting that Obama is a

far more irrational and anti-rational candidate than he can afford to admit in public, with vast

projects of world transformation and reform which could not yet be articulated. All of this could be

read into her constant references to “broken souls” that needed to be healed and made whole; this

was a construct into which individual listeners could project vast amounts of their personal fantasy

lives, and could imagine themselves emerging in the form of a new species of humanity. Some

might hear in Michelle’s standard remarks with the veiled promise that Obama is capable of

constructing a new world order in which instinctual repression will no longer be necessary, and

instinctual gratification will be immediately available — in other words, the eternal antinomian

promise to abolish the law and liberate the Freudian id. Exactly this has been the promise of the

VIII: “Our Souls Are Broken” - Michelle Obama, Postmodern Fascist Ideologue 289

false Messiahs of past centuries – the abolition of the law and instant gratification, somewhat in the

mode of Herbert Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization. Such hints were indeed present in the oratory of

the irrationalist mass movements between the two world wars, especially in Europe. This is the

kind of suggestion which has so often been a premonition of unspeakable horrors in the real world

of politics, economics, and military affairs, as a glance at the history of the last two and a quarter

centuries will confirm. Here is what Mrs. Obama had to say in her appearance at the University of

California Los Angeles on February 15, 2008:

SAMPLE MICHELLE OBAMA STUMP SPEECH, MID-FEBRUARY 2008

In 2008, we are still a nation that is too divided. We live in isolation, and because of that

isolation, we fear one another. We don’t know our neighbors. We don’t talk. We believe that

our pain is our own - we don’t realize that the struggles and challenges of all of us are the same.

We are too isolated. And we are still a nation that is still too cynical. We look at it as them and

they as opposed to us - we don’t engage because we are still too cynical. Don’t get sick in this

country - not here. Americans are in debt not because they live frivolously but because someone

got sick. And even with insurance, the deductibles and premiums are so high that people are

still putting medication and treatments on credit cards. And they can’t get out from under. I

could go on and on and on, but his is how we’re living, people, in 2008. And things have gotten

progressively worse throughout my lifetime - through Democratic and Republican

administrations - it hasn’t gotten better for regular folks. We have lost the understanding that in

a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another - that we cannot measure our

greatness in the society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness

by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get

things done - that is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this race who

understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls - our souls

are broken in this nation. If we can’t see ourselves in one another, we will never make those

sacrifices. So I am here right now because I am married to the only person in this race who has

a chance at healing this nation. The first major decision he had to make in his life, after college

- “Do I go to Wall Street and make money, or do I work for the people?” - Barack worked as a

community organizer in some of the toughest neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago.

Helping young mothers find their voice and their power - folks who had a reason to be cynical

because government had forgotten them long ago. There is no one else in this race who can

claim that kind of commitment to people on the ground. No one. And I would think in a nation

like ours, - Barack, as Oprah said, is one of the most brilliant men you will meet in our lifetime.

Barack is more than ready. He’ll be ready today, he’ll be ready on day one, he’ll be ready in a

year from now, five years from now - he is ready. That is not the question. The question is:

What are we ready for? Wait, wait, wait - because we say we’re ready for change, we say we’re

ready for change, butcha see, change is HARD. Change will always be hard, and it doesn’t

happen from the top down. We do not get universal health care, we don’t get better schools

because somebody else is in the White House. We get change because folks from the grass

roots up decide they are sick and tired of other people telling them how their lives will be -

when they decide to roll up their sleeves and work. And Barack Obama will require you to

work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your division, that

you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push

yourselves to be better, and that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your

lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed...We have young kids all over the world who are

looking to this nation, and they are trying to figure out who we are, and what we wanna

290 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

become. We have a chance, not just to make history, but we can change the world. We can

change the world - yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can... (Michelle

Obama at UCLA, February 15, 2008)141

Several sayings in this are notable here. First of all, Michelle effectively evokes the real

problems of the inadequate healthcare and other material privations which have been and are the

last of the American people on there for decades of overall reactionary Republican domination. But

it is equally striking that she does not propose any concrete measures to deal with these problems in

the real world. If anything, she rather argues that it is impossible to solve these problems in the

world the way it is presently constituted. Her line is that solving social problems and economic

problems is impossible, because our souls are defective. So this means that we cannot solve any

problems until we proceed to a complete reformation of the human personality itself. This is what

she means when she raises the issue of broken souls. How then should the human personality be

reformed, in Michelle’s opinion? The reference to turning away from Wall Street seems to indicate

that a de-emphasis of materialism in favor of spiritual benefits is required. We need to give up our

cynicism and think about the poor, she says. Naturally, all of this sententious advice stands in the

sharpest contrast to the greed, rapacity, and social climbing of Michelle and Barky, who have

become rich by working for the foundations, and by serving the corrupt Chicago political machine.

But few of the excitable lemmings attending an Obama rally will have any idea about that. Rather,

Michelle goes on to claim that Barky has an absolute monopoly on the path to salvation: he is the

only anointed one whose touch can heal and repair the broken souls of the people. There is the

strong implication that the process of fixing the broken souls is a painful process which will require

some kind of sacrifice, most likely in the form of economic austerity. But not only austerity:

Obama, she warns, will require that the population be kept in a constant state of mobilization and

activity in the service of the transformation which he means to initiate. These are the main features

of a process which will need to a complete utopian transformation of the world. At this point, the

crowd intervenes with chanting, in the best Mussolini-D’Annunzio tradition.

Let us now illustrate some of these aspects of Michelle’s standard speech by citing formulations

she has used on other occasions. The standard stump speech must necessarily very slightly from

place to place, and these differences of formulation will give us a further opportunity to see what

Michelle has in mind. The uniqueness of Obama as a savior (or Mahdi) is a constant feature. Here

is one journalistic account: ‘Michelle Obama declared that her husband is a needed anecdote to a

troubled nation torn by war and struggles for opportunity. “Before we can fix our problems, we

have to fix our souls,” she said. “Our souls are broken in this nation. We have lost our way. And it

begins with leadership. It begins with inspiration.” And: “Barack Obama will require you to work.

He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you

come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you

to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed.”’142

Obama always appears as the source of transfiguration and beatification of the drab, isolated,

and alienated individual lives of his followers, even though this process is accompanied by forms of

pain and sacrifice. Here is the same motif in a slightly different form: “We need to fix our souls,”

she said. “Our souls are broken in this nation. We have lost our way. And it begins with inspiration.

It begins with leadership.” And again, in yet another variation: “Before we can fix our problems, we

have to fix our souls...our souls are broken. It begins with LEADERSHIP. This race is about

CHARACTER. I am married to the only person in this race who has a chance of healing this

Nation.” (Michelle Obama, February 3, 2008)

VIII: “Our Souls Are Broken” - Michelle Obama, Postmodern Fascist Ideologue 291

The alleged uniqueness of Obama as the indispensable leader recurs again and again: Michelle

Obama also urged the crowd not to overlook the importance of inspiration and hope. “Our souls

are broken,” she said. “And right now we need some inspiration. Inspiration and hope are not

words. Everything begins and ends with hope. And the only person in this race who has a

chance of getting us where we need to be is Barack Obama.”

Sometimes the note of difficulty, sacrifice, and travail becomes more prominent, as here:

“We need a leader who’s going to touch our souls because you see, our souls are broken,”

Michelle Obama said. “The change Barack is talking about is hard, so don’t get too excited

because Barack is going to demand that you too be different.”

In medieval Europe, there was a tradition that a true King could cure diseases such as scrofula

with his mere touch alone: here we see Obama promoted to the level of such a sacral king, without

the benefit of the special ancient unctions which were stored in the French case in the cathedral of

Rheims. As a rule, the dominant notes of hope and change are tempered by many less prominent

references to austerity and sacrifice, leaving no doubt that there is no purgation of the broken soul

without pain:

‘Obama brought her husband’s message of hope and change to a standing-room-only crowd.

“Our souls are broken in this nation, and we need some inspiration and a whole lot of hope,”

she told a packed auditorium…. though Obama’s speaking style is generally more

conversational than that of her husband, she has her own loftier, more rhetorically aspirational

moments. “We need a different leadership because our souls are broken. We need to be

inspired...to make the sacrifices that are needed to push us to a different place,” she said. And,

toward the climax of her speech, she said, “Dreaming does count. You need to dream to realize

your possibilities.’143

At times, selected surrogates are permitted to join in the paean to Obama the savior, but Michelle

generally plays the role of the high priestess or Pythoness of the mystery cult of Barky. One such

surrogate was Caroline Kennedy, who was used to depict the apostolic succession of Obama from

the martyred Kennedy brothers. As Craig Crawford put it, the Kennedys had no choice but to pass

the torch to Obama, because their own kids were all in rehab. This account evokes such a liturgical

moment:

At UCLA, Caroline Kennedy called Obama a generational figure “who inspires me the way

people say my father inspired them. “It’s rare to have a candidate who can help us believe in

ourselves and tie that belief to the highest ideals,” said Kennedy, who said Obama stands for

“the future of our party and the future of our country.” Michelle Obama declared that her

husband is a needed anecdote to a troubled nation torn by war and struggles for opportunity.

“Before we can fix our problems, we have to fix our souls,” she said. “Our souls are broken in

this nation.”144

Incredibly enough, the question of broken souls or, more commonly, “wounded souls” is a

commonplace in the psychological and sociological literature about the genesis of mass movements

and their demagogic leaders. The dialectic of such movements commonly involves the promise of

the demagogue to provide solace and healing, or else violent revenge, for the damage suffered by

the battered souls of the rank and file. An example of this sort of thinking can be found in Dr.

Jerrold Post’s book, Leaders and Their Followers in a Dangerous World: The Psychology of

Political Behavior (Psychoanalysis and Social Theory) (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2004).

292 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Dr. Post had worked for two decades as the head of CIA bureau charged with developing

psychological profiles of the leaders of foreign states and other targets of Langley. Ironically, Dr.

Post was interviewed by Sam Litzinger on WWWT radio in Washington DC in early May 2008 at

some length precisely about this question of wounded souls. Michelle Obama was thus revealed as a

fascist ideologue so cynical that she introduced the technical jargon of mass brainwashing into her

standard stump speech. It was clear that the intelligence community’s professional mind-benders

were an integral part of the Obama campaign apparatus, helping to churn out the demagogy about

hope for broken souls when they were touched by the new false messiah.

“A RENUNCIATION OF DEMOCRACY AND AN EMBRACE OF FASCISM”

The older American common sense would suggest that if your soul is broken, you probably need

a priest, or else a shrink. The idea that you would turn to a politician is a decidedly novel one, and

by all indications a sign of decadence and degeneracy in a culture which has been made ripe for

fascism by the degradation of eight years of Bush-Cheney neocon domination, false flag terrorism,

and senseless wars. But, whatever the cause, fascism is fascism and it must be denounced wherever

it is found. Those who call attention to the presence of fascism deserve credit, whatever their

motives, and however objectionable other aspects of their own outlook might be. We must

therefore thank Caroline Glick for having had the courage to write the following:

Speaking in February of the man she knows better than anyone else does, Michelle Obama said

that her husband, Illinois Senator and candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination

Barack Obama, is the only candidate for president who understands that before America can

solve its problems, Americans have to fix their “broken souls.” She also said that her husband’s

unique understanding of the state of souls of the American people makes him uniquely qualified

to be President. Obama can do what his opponent in the Democratic race Senator Hillary

Clinton, and Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, cannot

do. He can heal his countrymen’s broken souls. He will redeem them. But then, saving souls is

hard work, and Mrs. Obama won’t place the whole burden on her husband. He’ll make the

Americans work for him. As she put it, “Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to

demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of

your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better.

And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved,

uninformed.” At base, Mrs. Obama’s statement is nothing less than a renunciation of

democracy and an embrace of fascism. The basic idea of liberty is that people have a natural

right to live their lives as usual and to be uninvolved and uninformed. And they certainly have a

right to expect that their government will butt out of their souls.’ (Caroline Glick, “Obama the

Savior,” Jerusalem Post, April 22, 2008)

Neocon or not, Ms. Glick is precisely on target. Perhaps in the near future American politics will

be divided into the broken souls faction, and another faction which will demand that government

butt out of their souls. It would be better to divide over real economic issues, and Obama has been

deployed among us for the precise purpose of making sure that such a reality-based economic

debate does not happen.

“FEEL – DON’T THINK! … BE VISCERAL!”

Another important window into Michelle Obama’s fascist ideology is provided by a report of the

advice she gave her husband early in the primary season. Here we read the following:

VIII: “Our Souls Are Broken” - Michelle Obama, Postmodern Fascist Ideologue 293

‘On a conference call to prepare for a recent debate, Barack Obama brainstormed with his top

advisers on the fine points of his positions. Michelle Obama had dialed in to listen, but finally

couldn’t stay silent any longer. “Barack,” she interjected, “Feel — don’t think!” Telling her

husband his “over-thinking” during past debates had tripped him up with rival Hillary Clinton,

she said: “Don’t get caught in the weeds. Be visceral. Use your heart — and your head.”’

(Monica Langley, “Michelle Obama Solidifies Her Role in the Election,” Wall Street Journal,

February 11, 2008)

This advice spotlights another indispensable aspect of fascist ideology, and that is the rejection

of reason and of thinking in general in favor of irrational intuition. In the modern US Hollywood

culture, the irrational elements are so pervasive that the average person has a very hard time

remembering the insistence on mass irrationality on the part of all the European fascist movements

of the first half of the 20th century. In those days, fascist demagogues and international bankers

recommended that the masses think with their blood; “May the Force be with you” is a more recent

Hollywood version of something quite similar. German fascists lived in the world of Wagner’s

Ring cycle, and cultivated myth, superstition, astrology, and occult folklore. Over the past decades,

Hollywood has churned out The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and an avalanche of mummies,

vampires, witches, mutants, warlocks, super-heroes, and wizards. The latest Indiana Jones movie

now has the Russians as the enemy, just in time for the Brzezinski Plan. Those saturated in such

irrationalist banality have a very hard time resisting irrationality when it appears in political form.

Telling somebody to be visceral means telling them to think with their bowels or with their guts,

not with their head. This is very close to the classic fascist approach which is to tell them to think

with their blood. “Think with your blood” has come into English-speaking culture directly through

the translations of speeches by both Hitler, Mussolini, and their followers. It has also been

propagated by the works of a writer who is better known as a pornographer than as a fascist, but

who had very pronounced fascist sympathies which his literary promoters have found it convenient

to sweep under the rug: we mean of course D.H. Lawrence, the Nietzschean and fascist sympathizer

whose novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover was all the rage on American campuses a half century ago.

Lawrence was interested in the theme of blood consciousness especially as it related to erotic

mysticism and to his own pornographic vision in general. More important precursors of the theory

of blood consciousness which Michelle Obama seems to profess include first of all the Italian ultranationalist

provocateur and British agent Giuseppe Mazzini, who taught that the individual was in

the process of disappearing from world history to be replaced by a new protagonist in the form of

the ethnic or racial group, the popolo. Another important precursor was the German philosopher

Johann Gottlieb Fichte, a contemporary of Napoleon Bonaparte. Fichte’s concept of the Volksgeist

meant that every national grouping had its own characteristic mental outlook and way of thinking

which was not commensurable with the mentalities of other ethnic groups. This tended to

undermine the notion of universal reason as a general human characteristic or potential. A third

precursor to Michelle’s outlook can be found in National Socialism, where it was claimed that the

positive content of world culture was uniquely the product of the Germanic race, and that the

method of thinking characteristic of all other ethnic groups was inherently inferior, destructive, and

worthy of extirpation.

For the fascist ideologues, blood consciousness meant something slightly different: blood for

them meant race, and blood consciousness accordingly indicated a mental outlook that was

determined by one’s own race-based existence. For these fascists, “think with your blood” was a

way of demanding that you think like a member of your own ethnic or racial tribe. But today, the

general US public knows almost nothing about the “think with your blood” side of fascism, perhaps

294 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

because it is too close for comfort to the prevailing foundation-backed racial identities which

require certain groups to act black, act like la raza, and so forth. A few examples will be useful to

show how big a role the “think with your blood” slogan played in fascist agitation, as part of the

more general fascist attack on human reason and critical thinking, which the foundations continue

into our own time. Here blood consciousness finds its place in any array of better known fascist

slogans:

Slogans like “Who has betrayed us, the Social Democrats,” “The Jews are our Misfortune,”

“Think with your Blood,” “One Nation, One Race, One People,” are the slogans of fascist

movements….(Norman Markowitz, “Tom DeLay’s Kampf,” political affairs.net, April 9,

2005)145

Markowitz observes, in a totally different context and before Obama burst upon the scene,

Ultra-rightists and open Fascists are in effect cheap political crooks whose gaudy patter is

aimed at covering up their corruption, crimes, and drive to establish dictatorial political power.

Sing “God Bless America” (or “Deutschland Uber Alles,” or whatever) hate Communists,

Socialists, liberals, Jews, Muslims, or whomever is convenient in your political market, and

“think with your blood,” a Mussolini slogan that translates as think with your emotions and

ethnicity, not with your head. 146

The prominence of thinking with your blood as a fascist concept has also not been lost on

competent academic writers on the subject, at least until Michelle came along. A recent academic

survey notes:

In this respect, fascism is a reactionary ideology. It took shape in the years following World

War I as a reaction against the two leading ideologies of the time, liberalism and socialism.

Unhappy with the liberal emphasis on the individual and the socialist emphasis on contending

social classes, the fascists provided a view of the world in which individuals and classes were to

be absorbed into an all-embracing whole-a mighty empire under the control of a single party

and a supreme leader. Like the Reactionaries of the early 1800s, they also rejected the faith in

reason that they thought formed the foundation for liberalism and socialism alike. Reason is less

reliable, both Mussolini and Hitler declared, than intuitions and emotions – what we sometimes

call “gut instincts.” This is why Mussolini exhorted his followers to “think with your blood.”

(Terrence Ball and Richard Dagger, Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal (New York:

Longman Publishing, 1998), chapter 7; Fascism.)147

Other students of fascism have stressed the pervasive irrationalism, often tinged with

romanticism, of these movements, an irrationalism that is emphatically shared by Obama:

At its best this way of thinking — or rather, of feeling — is a usually harmless romanticism. At

its worst, and not uncommonly, lies the darker version of romanticism that resembles — to

many scholars, is the essence of — fascism. One such scholar was the great British philosopher,

Isaiah Berlin. According to this review (critical review, by the way) of his collection of essays,

The Roots of Romanticism (Princeton, 1999), Berlin argued that Romanticism’s emphasis on

passion over reason represented “a rupture with the Enlightenment’s commitment to reason and

objectivity.”148

Irrationalism in the United States received a huge boost 40 years ago with the failure of the

political movements of the 1960s, and the arrival – during the phase of acute demoralization,

VIII: “Our Souls Are Broken” - Michelle Obama, Postmodern Fascist Ideologue 295

disorientation, and despair that followed during the 1970s, of a tsunami of irrationalism under the

guise of the so-called counter culture:

The counter culture’s tie-in with Romanticism is important for one particular reason. In its latest

stages, Romantic culture degenerated into one of the central ingredients of fascism: “Feeling is

all,” Goethe’s Faust proclaimed: and a little more than a century later Hitler, almost

paraphrasing D. H. Lawrence, provided a distorted echo: “Think with your blood.” (Theodore

Roszak, “Youth and the Great Refusal” (1968)149

Has Michelle Obama been reading the classics of fascism? And if not, where could she have

gotten the specific form of the ideology she is expressing with her order to Barky to “be visceral”?

Maybe we should look for the obvious: the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, foundation-funded racist

provocateur. Wright offered the elements of a theory of Afrocentric or black-only irrationalism in

his speech to an NAACP dinner in Detroit on April 27, 2008, just before his speech to the National

Press Club which impelled Obama to dump him. Here Wright outlined a tradition of writers going

back to Carter G. Woodson, and then to

…two brilliant scholars and two beautiful sisters, both of whom hail from Detroit in the fields

of education and linguistics, Dr. Janice Hale right here at Wayne State University, founder of

the Institute for the Study of the African-American Child, and Dr. Geneva Smitherman formerly

of Wayne State University now at Michigan State University in Lansing. Hale in education and

Smitherman in linguistics. Both demonstrated 40 years ago that different does not mean

deficient.150

Janice Hale’s book Black Children (1986) is billed the Johns Hopkins University Press in these

terms:

As African-American children are acculturated at home and in the African-American

community, they develop cognitive patterns and behaviors that may prove incompatible with

the school environment. Cultural factors produce group differences that must be addressed in

the educational process.” Wright’s reading of Hale is summarized below. Smitherman travels in

the world of what the average person would possibly recognize as Ebonics, the attempt to

codify an African-American dialect or ghetto language of substandard grammar and limited

vocabulary (especially in the hard sciences) which would turn the black community in on itself,

cut off its channels of communication with the wider world, and render children speaking

Ebonics unemployable for life in the twenty-first century, when not just internationally

intelligible standard English, but one or two foreign languages will be in demand.151

Ebonics and its variations represents yet another weapon in the foundation and ruling class

armory to impose self-enforced separation, backwardness, and poverty on the black community.

Here is the left brain-right brain “race science” theory as expounded by Wright to the NAACP:

Dr. Hale’s research led her to stop comparing African-American children with European-

American children and she started comparing the pedagogical methodologies of African-

American children to African children and European-American children to European children.

And bingo, she discovered that the two different worlds have two different ways of learning.

European and European-American children have a left brained cognitive object-oriented

learning style and the entire educational learning system in the United States of America, back

in the early ‘70s, when Dr. Hale did her research, was based on left brained cognitive object

oriented learning style. Let me help you with fifty cent words. Left brain is logical and

analytical. Object oriented means the student learns from an object. From the solitude of the

296 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

cradle with objects being hung over his or her head to help them determine colors and shape to

the solitude in a carrel in a Ph.D. program stuffed off somewhere in a corner in absolute

quietness to absorb from the object. From a block to a book, an object. That is one way of

learning, but it is only one way of learning. African and African-American children have a

different way of learning. They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style. Right

brain that means creative and intuitive. Subject oriented means they learn from a subject, not an

object. They learn from a person. Some of you are old enough, I see your hair color, to

remember when the NAACP won that tremendous desegregation case back in 1954 and when

the schools were desegregated. They were never integrated. When they were desegregated in

Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids

wouldn’t stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them.

Because they learn from a subject, not from an object. Tell me a story. They have a different

way of learning. Those same children who have difficulty reading from an object and who are

labeled EMH, DMH and ADD. Those children can say every word from every song on every

hip hop radio station half of who’s words the average adult here tonight cannot understand.

Why? Because they come from a right-brained creative oral culture like the (greos?) [sic] in

Africa who can go for two or three days as oral repositories of a people’s history and like the

oral tradition which passed down the first five books in our Jewish bible, our Christian Bible,

our Hebrew bible long before there was a written Hebrew script or alphabet. And repeat

incredulously long passages like Psalm 119 using mnemonic devices using eight line stanzas.

Each stanza starting with a different letter of the alphabet. That is a different way of learning.

It’s not deficient, it is just different. Somebody say different. I believe that a change is going to

come because many of us are committed to changing how we see other people who are

different. What Dr. Janice Hale did in the field of education, Dr. Geneva Smitherman did in the

field of linguistics.152

When Wright says the right brain is intuitive, he means irrational. When he says the left brain is

logical, he is attacking reason. Not content with destroying the unity of world history by carving it

up into a multitude of hermetically sealed cultures in the manner of Oswald Spengler, modern

foundation-funded “race science” also attempts to demolish the unity of human reason. In reality,

human reason is the single invariant factor which can be observed at work in every society from the

emergence of humans down to the present day. It is a true universal, necessary and present in every

individual. It is present in Plato and in Confucius, in the Egypt of Akhnaton and in the Baghdad of

Haroun al Rashid, and it is neither eastern nor western, neither northern nor southern, neither black

nor white. It is present from Thales to Dr. George Washington Carver. It belongs to no race, and has

no color.

To attempt to mutilate or deform this universal reason is the greatest act of vandalism against

humanity that is possible, and it is likely to bring on catastrophic consequences that go far beyond

the world of ideas. This is what the foundation-funded racists, obscurantists, irrationalists, and

mythmongers are attempting to do. Wright is their publicist, and Barack and Michelle are the

fanatical cadre they have formed. Do Hale and Smitherman know that they are converging with

Gumplowitz, Houston S. Chamberlain and Alfred Rosenberg? They may or may not, but that is

what they are doing. Foundation-funded race theory is a desolate path that leads into the abyss of

blood consciousness. It should also be clear that the left brain-right brain mumbo-jumbo is the

mirror image of the Robert Herrnstein - Charles Murray Bell Curve racism, but decked out in

radical rhetoric to make it seem liberating and thus acceptable to the black community.

VIII: “Our Souls Are Broken” - Michelle Obama, Postmodern Fascist Ideologue 297

When Craig Venter went to the White House in 2000 to inform President Clinton that modern

science had mastered the human genome, he told Clinton that one of the results of his research was

that no such thing as race exists. President Clinton declared, “After all, I believe one of the great

truths to emerge from this triumphant expedition inside the human genome is that in genetic terms

all human beings, regardless of race, are more than 99.9% the same.” At the same press conference,

Craig Venter, president and CEO of Celera Genomics, reinforced Clinton’s message, asserting that

“the concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis.”153 Race is a fiction, an empty construct, a

pure mystification. The neurological differences that Wright asserts are the result of poverty and

exclusion, and can be dealt with by eliminating these factors.

“GNOSTIC” ELEMENTS IN THE OBAMA AGITATION

Another way of analyzing Michelle Obama’s speeches about the problem of broken souls is to

understand that she is claiming for political activity in government a much wider role than has

usually been the case in this country. Michelle Obama is trying to sell politics as a means of

reaching goals which have normally been associated with religion. The fixing or healing or making

whole of broken souls is the task of Paradise or Nirvana, and not of the politically rally or the ballot

box. The traditional view is the one expressed by St. Paul:

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues,

they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we

prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done

away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but

when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but

then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.154

According to this, it is only in the life of the world to come that the fragmentation, mutilation,

and alienation of this earthly vale of tears can be overcome. Virtuous pagans could and did have

wisdom, justice, temperance, and fortitude, but faith, hope and charity are specifically Christian

virtues – especially, for our purposes here, hope. Michelle Obama makes a radically different claim,

suggesting that the magical powers possessed by her husband can realize and accomplish in the

political form, on earth, and soon the sorts of deep changes that are usually reserved for heaven.

The political philosopher Eric Voegelin applied the label of Gnosticism to this kind of political

culture. Others suggested that the fascists could be called pagan or neopagan, but Voegelin insisted

on the term Gnostic, since he saw modern politicians in Europe as holding out the promise of

specifically Christian forms of Paradise or heaven (referred to as the eschaton), but brought down to

earth in the form of a political utopia thought to be within reach if only state power could be seized

and held.

A pre-Obama standard reference summary of Voegelin’s leading concept may make these

connections clear:

Voegelin was a political philosopher known most widely in America for The New Science of

Politics, his 1952 University of Chicago Walgreen lectures. In them Voegelin argued that

modern ideological movements such as communism and fascism repeated the gnostic heresy of

early Christianity. Early Christian gnosticism separated a person’s “spiritual” elements—

claimed to be real—from his or her “material” parts—claimed to be unreal. Jesus was perfect

because his spirit—his reason and motivation—was perfect. Gnostics believed humans who

grasped this truth could also achieve perfection on earth and not have to wait for the eschaton.

Voegelin argued that in modern times gnosticism has become politicized. Politicized gnosticism

298 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

asserts that personal and social perfection is possible. Such perfection, however, usually

requires a few sages who understand the truths and who must sometimes rather ruthlessly and

violently impose “perfection” on others. Both fascism and communism, according to Voegelin,

are gnostic-like attempts to “immanentize the eschaton;” that is, to overcome the limitations,

anxieties, and uncertainties of human experience for an enlightened vanguard to build a “heaven

on earth.” (A wonderful theory, its implementation always goes astray.) One destroys real

democracy and politics in the process of imposing a “perfect” social vision. (Wikipedia)

Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger has made the following observations about communist ideology,

which are also highly relevant to our current discussion of a fascist mentality: “...where the Marxist

ideology of liberation had been consistently applied, a total lack of freedom had developed, whose

horrors were now laid bare before the eyes of the entire world. Wherever politics tries to be

redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine,

but demonic.” These remarks are included in Ratzinger’s “Liberation Theology” (2007), a critique

of currents in theology which share a great deal with the James Cone “Black liberation theology”

taught by the foundation-funded racist provocateur Jeremiah Wright, who is evidently a special

favorite of Michelle.

THE SAVIOR

The gnostic mantle of the Obama campaign envelops both Barack and Michelle, each in their

assigned role. Obama supporters are often apolitical or anti-political. They are fans, groupies,

cultists, enthusiasts, adepts, and they avidly crowd around the divine couple. The great violinist

Yehudi Menuhin wrote that, having witnessed both modern rock concerts and Nazi party rallies, he

could sense something in common between the two, and concluded that rock concerts might well

represent a preparation for authoritarianism and fascism later on.

The first generations that cannot remember a world without orgiastic rock concerts and mosh

pits are also the ones that provide Obama with his idolaters:

“People don’t come to Obama for what he’s done in the Senate,” says Bruce Reed, president of

the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. “They come because of what they hope he could be.”

What Obama stands for, if anything, is not yet clear. Everywhere he goes he is greeted by thrilled

crowds, trailed constantly by a reporter from The Chicago Tribune who is writing a book about the

senator with a preliminary title so immodest that it embarrassed even Obama’s staff: The Savior.

The danger here is that the public has committed the cardinal sin of political love, forcing Obama

onto the national stage before knowing him well enough to gauge whether he’s ready for it. The

candidate they see before them is their own creation — or, rather, it is the scrambling of a skinny,

serious, self-reflective man trying to mold his public’s conflicted yearnings into something greater.

“Barack has become a kind of human Rorschach test,” says Cassandra Butts, a friend of the

senator’s from law school and now a leader at the Center for American Progress. “People see in him

what they want to see.” (Wallace Wells, Rolling Stone)

The London Sunday Telegraph reported: “Barack Obama criticized over ‘cult-like’ rallies.” The

article went on to report: “for a growing number of Barack Obama skeptics, there is something

disturbing about the adulation with which the senator and Democratic presidential frontrunner is

greeted as he campaigns for the White House – unnervingly akin to the hysteria of a cult, or the

fervour of a religious revival.”

VIII: “Our Souls Are Broken” - Michelle Obama, Postmodern Fascist Ideologue 299

A recent London Times story (also appearing in The Australian) was headlined: “Early signs of a

Barack-lash.” Correspondent James Bone wrote:

The American presidential candidate who can do no wrong is experiencing the first signs of dip

in popularity, called the “Barack-lash”. Barack Obama has become a darling of the internet

generation since he started his underdog campaign to triumph over the wife of a former

president and become the first black leader of the free world. Millions downloaded a YouTube

video of his “Yes We Can” speech set to music by Black Eyed Peas front man will.i.am with

celebrity friends including actors Scarlett Johansson and Amber Valletta. But Obama’s

popularity has begun to rebound on him now that he has emerged as the Democratic

frontrunner. Even supporters are questioning whether he can really deliver on all their hopes.

Mathew Honan, a freelance writer and contributor to Obama’s campaign, set up a website

called www.obamaisyournewbicycle.com after his wife, Harper, a nurse and avid cyclist, began

exhibiting symptoms of “Obama-mania”. Within two weeks there were more than 2.3 million

visits to the site, which carries messages such as: “Barack Obama escorted your Gramma across

the street”; “Barack Obama baked you a pie”; “Barack Obama dedicated a song to you”;

“Barack Obama carries a picture of you in his wallet”; and “Barack Obama remembered your

birthday”. Website obamamessiah.blogspot.com asks “Is Obama the Messiah?” and boasts a

“transfiguration” scene of the Christ-like candidate addressing supporters from a staircase. In a

section on “Obama Conversion Stories”, it quotes author Deepak Chopra calling Obama’s

candidacy “a quantum leap in American consciousness”. The SenatorObamas.com site portrays

him in a variety of guises, from “Obamarama” to the nightwear-clad “Pajamabama”. Before the

Hollywood writers’ strike, Obama won sympathy on the widely watched Saturday Night Live

television comedy show on November 3, playing himself as a guest at a party thrown by the

presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and her husband, Bill. With the writers back

at work, Saturday Night Live returned to lampoon the Obama media obsession. A white actor

played Obama in a sketch parodying the latest Democratic debate. The moderator confessed she

had been “clinically diagnosed as an Obamamaniac”. The New York Times columnist David

Brooks has diagnosed the mood swing experienced by many liberals as “Obama Comedown

Syndrome”. “The afflicted had already been through the phases of Obamamania — fainting at

rallies, weeping over their touch screens while watching Obama videos, spending hours making

folk crafts featuring Michelle Obama’s face,” Brooks writes. “These patients had experienced

intense surges of hope-amine, the brain chemical that fuels euphoric sensations of historic

change and personal salvation. But they found that as the weeks went on, they needed more and

purer hope injections just to preserve the rush. “They wound up craving more hope than even

the Hope Pope could provide, and they began experiencing brooding moments of suboptimal

hopefulness. “Anxious posts began to appear on the Yes We Can! Facebook pages. A sense of

ennui began to creep through the nation’s Ian McEwan-centred book clubs.” (James Bone,

London Times, February 25, 2008)

OBAMA: “LOOK AT THESE FOLKS WHO ARE BEING DUPED”

Obama tried to fight back against the “cult” description, and NBC’s Lee Cowan reported from

Toledo that there was

“…a subtle new argument that Barack Obama’s been using ... that’s starting to get some

traction.” “He says it’s not so much what Hillary Clinton says about him by way of criticism,”

Cowan explained, “but what she’s implying about his supporters that he says should get them

pretty riled up.” Obama first introduced this argument at Tuesday’s debate in Austin, where he

300 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

stated, “The implication is, the people who’ve been voting for me or involved in my campaign

are somehow delusional.” Obama’s stump speech was revamped to include the same argument.

“Some of these folks make fun of y’all,” he told one audience. “They say, ‘Y’all look at these

folks who are being duped.’“ “However they’re characterized, they are certainly energetic,”

Cowan concluded, seeming uncertain just what to make of Obama’s supporters. “And the more

they are criticized for that enthusiasm, the more it just seems to galvanize their cause.”’ There

was talk of Hare Krishna and the Manson family. Obama was mentioned as both the Messiah

and the anti-Christ, with elaborate web sites devoted to both themes. A slate.com editor noticed

that Obama’s rhetorical style was similar to that of Mussolini: ‘The deputy editor of a major

online magazine spent time in a weekly podcast explaining how the style of Senator Barack

Obama shares much in common with the speech of fascist dictators like Benito Mussolini.

“That’s slightly fascistic,” David Plotz, the deputy editor at Slate.com said in the magazine’s

weekly podcast when one of his fellow editors brought up Obama’s style. “That’s a very, like,

let’s rally the nation. I don’t want to be rallied.” After his fellow Slate editors lightly gibed him

for his statement, he continued the point: “My brother who is an academic wrote this wonderful

book about crowds, and crowd theory. And one of the sort of lessons that he’s always imparted

to me is just that crowds are terrifying. Crowds are horrifying for the most part because they

have a will of their own, and they act independently of rationality. And I think that Obama

relies hugely on that. That’s not to say, I don’t, I still support him, but I don’t like that fascistic,

I like him not for the fascistic elements of his candidacy, which I think are profound.”’ (Michael

Roston, Slate editor calls Obama speech style ‘fascistic,’” Rawstory, February 4, 2008)

Right-wing Fox News Radio host Tom Sullivan took a call from a listener who stated that when

listening to Barack Obama speak, “it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch those

deals with Hitler, how he would excite the crowd and they’d come to their feet and scream and

yell.” Sullivan then played a “side-by-side comparison” of a Hitler speech and an Obama speech.

Sullivan mimicked the crowd during both speeches, yelling, “Yay! Yay!” Radio reactionary

Michael Savage agreed. It would be easy to disregard these comments because the sources have

discredited themselves so thoroughly in their support of Bush and his lunatic foreign wars. But then

again, gold is sometimes where you find it.

IRRATIONALIST MASS MOVEMENTS TARGET WOMEN

No account of the success of Mussolini and his imitators as mob orators would be complete

without some mention of the special hypnotic power which fascist rhetoric and the personality of

the fascist leader exercised on women. Some of the most enthusiastic swooners at fascist rallies

were women, many of whom had a special devotion for Il Duce. Obama seems to have acquired an

instinctive awareness of this set of issues from his own mother. If we are to judge by the

prominence that this episode receives in Obama’s memoirs, we must conclude that one of the

formative experiences of Obama’s life was the moment when his mother revealed to him that she

found Harry Belafonte to be sexually attractive. This experience seems to have furnished Obama

with the belief that he is able to exercise an almost hypnotic appeal over middle-aged white woman,

and his campaign has tried very hard to play this card, including through the use of special focus

groups. Here is the episode in question, as described in a recent puff piece of adulation offered by a

popular magazine to the Perfect Master:

There is an amazingly candid moment in Obama’s autobiography when he writes of his

childhood discomfort at the way his mother would sexualize African-American men. “More

than once,” he recalls, “my mother would point out: ‘Harry Belafonte is the best-looking man

VIII: “Our Souls Are Broken” - Michelle Obama, Postmodern Fascist Ideologue 301

on the planet.’” “What the focus groups his advisers conducted revealed was that Obama’s

political career now depends, in some measure, upon a tamer version of this same feeling, on

the complicated dynamics of how white women respond to a charismatic black man. “I

remember when we realized something magical was happening,” says Obama’s pollster on the

campaign, an earnest Iowan named Paul Harstad. “We were doing a focus group in suburban

Chicago, and this woman, seventy years old, looks seventy-five, hears Obama’s life story, and

she clasps her hand to her chest and says, ‘Be still, my heart.’ Be still, my heart — I’ve been

doing this for a quarter century and I’ve never seen that.” The most remarkable thing, for

Harstad, was that the woman hadn’t even seen the videos he had brought along of Obama

speaking, had no idea what the young politician looked like. “All we’d done,” he says, “is tell

them the Story.” From that moment on, the Story became Obama’s calling card, his political

rationale and his basic sale. Every American politician has this wrangle he has to pull off,

reshaping his life story to fit into Abe Lincoln’s log cabin. Some pols (John Edwards, Bill

Clinton) have an easier time of it than others (George Bush, Al Gore). Obama’s material is

simply the best of all. What he has to offer, at the most fundamental level, is not ideology or

even inspiration — it is the Story, the feeling that he embodies, in his own, uniquely American

history, a longed-for break from the past. “With Obama, it’s all about his difference,” says Joe

Trippi, the Democratic consultant who masterminded Howard Dean’s candidacy. “We see in

him this hope that the country might be different, too.”’ (Wallace Wood, Rolling Stone)

Obama’s handlers have devoted much special study to enhancing their candidates appeal among

women, specifically white women, and even more specifically middle-aged white women. This has

included attempts to capitalize on sexual tensions across racial lines, obviously a big issue for

Obama’s mother, and the phenomenon evoked by one blogger who observed about Obama:

‘Years later, when he’s working on Wall Street, he’s creeped out by his visiting mother’s

insistence on seeing her favorite film, the 1959 Brazilian art-house classic “Black Orpheus.” He

belatedly realizes that his very fair-skinned mother is sexually attracted to dark men. He pompously

intones, “The emotions between the races could never be pure; even love was tarnished by the

desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our

demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.”’

Here is a description of the results of some of Obama’s white woman focus groups:

What the focus groups his advisers conducted revealed was that Obama’s political career now

depends, in some measure, upon a tamer version of this same feeling, on the complicated

dynamics of how white women respond to a charismatic black man. Early in his run for the U.S.

Senate in 2004, Obama’s pollsters discovered that women loved him, especially nice white

ladies who like personalities more than politics and definitely don’t like political arguments.

Then, running preliminary polls, his advisers noticed something remarkable: Women responded

more intensely and warmly to Obama than did men. In a seven-candidate field, you don’t need

to win every vote. His advisers, assuming they would pick up a healthy chunk of black votes,

homed in on a different target: Every focus group they ran was composed exclusively of

women, nearly all of them white.’ (Wallace-Wells, Rolling Stone) But these same middle aged

ladies were not happy with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Anton Rezko,

and their view of Barky began to change. By late July 2008, Dick Morris was arguing that

Obama’s greatest vulnerability was his failure to convince older women to vote for him. Recent

national polls show Obama with just a 40% favorable ratio among white voters. “He is clearly

302 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

hitting up against some substantial sales resistance, particularly among middle aged and older

white women,” Morris argued.155

FEMINIST RENEGADES FOR OBAMA

The internet is now replete with women who are eager to recount their sexual fantasies about

Obama. Here we can see some of the pathos which Obama’s cynical handlers and controllers are

determined to exploit in order to seize power:

Have you ever gone through a really dry period sexually? At first you get angry that you’re

being neglected and ignored, and you act out. Then one day you wake up with a sense of

nonchalance and you start to marvel at how much you’re getting done, and how much easier it

is not to care. And then... one day, maybe a stranger comes and begins to romance you and

strokes your hair in a sort of contemplative way, uttering the most delightful insights. He

touches your hand softly and then a little more firmly, awakening the feelings that you thought

you’d left behind, and then you start speaking really poetically and hearing melodies and then

suddenly you WANT IN! You want back in the game and you think ‘spring is here’... YES WE

CAN!’ (Lili Haydn, “Why Obama is Like a Desert Lover,” February 29, 2008)

Although those involved will not appreciate the suggestion, it may well be that these focus

groups and the tactics developed from them have something to do with the failure of many feminist

leaders to honor their most obvious commitment and support Senator Clinton for president, turning

instead to the arch-manipulator Obama. One massive defection by these erstwhile feminists took

place at the beginning of February, and evoked a puff piece from the Huffington web site which

announced:

“New York Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama,” an organization of more than 100 New

York feminist leaders released a joint statement Sunday afternoon criticizing Hillary Clinton

and supporting Obama for president. Clinton’s support for the war in Iraq was the leading

reason she lost the support of the group. Those endorsing Obama include longtime peace

activist Cora Weiss; Katha Pollitt, columnist for The Nation; Pulitzer-prize winning New York

Times writer Margo Jefferson; award-winning women’s rights historians Alice Kessler Harris

and Linda Gordon; Barbara Weinstein, president of the American Historical Association, and

Ellen P. Chapnick, Dean for Social Justice Initiatives at Columbia Law School. Susan Sarandon

and Francis Fox Piven signed on Monday.”

MASTERS OF VENOM: THE OBAMA ATTACK MACHINE

It should also be mentioned that female critics of Obama, starting with Senator Clinton, Chelsea

Clinton, and Geraldine Ferraro, have received especially brutal treatment by the Obama aversive

attack apparatus. Here is a testimonial to this effect by the well-known writer and feminist Erica

Jong:

Ever since I wrote an article in the Washington Post ten days ago, I’ve been getting love letters

from women and super-smart men and brickbats from the Hillary-Haters. Unfortunately the

Hillary-Haters are in charge. They monopolize the networks, the newspapers, the talk shows —

both radio and TV. They are crossing their legs for fear of castration. They are wearing the

body armor our troops never got. Or got too late to matter. They are determined that a woman

will not prove herself competent as Commander in Chief. Patriarchy: 1000, Hillary: 0.”156

VIII: “Our Souls Are Broken” - Michelle Obama, Postmodern Fascist Ideologue 303

LEFT CIA FOR OBAMA

Just as Lenin praised Mussolini from afar, all kinds of extremist political movements today have

shown a fascination with Obama, if only because of the promise he holds out to them that the US

will soon undergo a huge and crippling internal convulsion. One such admirer is President Danny

Ortega of Nicaragua, the radical-chic former Sandinista leader who was infamous for making his

shopping trips to procure designer sunglasses into his top priority, at international conferences

where he was supposed to be working for his country and people. If Danny Ortega survives today, it

is manifestly because he has made his deal with the CIA and has accepted the status of a radical

asset operating under anti-US cover within the bounds marked out for him by the State Department.

On February 14, 2008, Danny Ortega endorsed Obama, saying that the senator’s presidential bid is

a “revolutionary” phenomenon in the United States:

“It’s not to say that there is already a revolution under way in the U.S. ... but yes, they are

laying the foundations for a revolutionary change,” Ortega, described Obama as a spokesman

for the millions of Central American and Mexican citizens who migrate to the U.S., and said he

has “faith in God and in the North American people, and above all in the youth, that the

moment of great change in the U.S. will come and it will act differently, with justice and

equality toward all nations.”

The radical chic Ortega is out of touch. US Hispanics, except those on the foundation payroll,

have no love for Obama.

Obama also has the endorsement of the New Black Panther Party. ‘His website has a link to the

“New Black Panther party which has endorsed his run for the Presidency. From the website: “Why I

support Barack Obama: Barack Obama represents “Positive Change” for all of America. Obama

will stir the “Melting Pot” into a better “Molten America.”’157 This endorsement was expunged

during one of the frequent Orwellian purges which Barky has to carry out from time to time as he

morphs from one political profile into another.

MEDIA WHORES FOR OBAMA

If fascism is coming to the United States, the corrupt corporate media must bear a good deal of

the responsibility. During the 2008 primaries ordinary Americas, especially women, became aware

as never before that the television networks are not news organizations, but rather purveyors of

mass brainwashing. Reporters became the lightning rods for outbursts of popular rage:

ABC’s Kate Snow tells me that members of the public often bear down on her when they see

her TV mike, cursing her out as a stand-in for Tim Russert, even though he is at NBC. “They

feel we’re the people taking her down,” she said. (Tina Brown, Newsweek, 17 March 2008)

This was before the death and canonization of Russert, who was nothing more than another

sleazy propagandist among many. As a result of the media vilification of Senator Clinton, the

potential for a resistance to fascism on the part of women has surely increased: ‘Cynthia Ruccia,

a grass-roots political organizer in Columbus, told me that in these last beleaguered weeks,

women started showing up in waves at Clinton headquarters—women who told her they had

never volunteered in a campaign before. “There was just an outpouring about the way she was

being treated by the media,” Ruccia said. “It was something we hadn’t seen in a long time. We

all felt, as women, we had made a lot of progress, and we saw this as an attack of misogyny that

was trying to beat her down.”’ One leading exponent of New Age and other irrationalism for

consumption by women is Oprah Winfrey, whose ratings fell precipitously after she had

304 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

conducted a public fling with Obama, especially because of resentment from women over this

betrayal. One of Oprah’s previous darlings had been the writer James Frey, who had marketed a

fictional account as a real first person narrative of actual events. With Frey and Obama, Oprah

had struck out twice in a row. Women were appalled: “Even Oprah abandoned them when she

opted for Obama. Am I alone in suspecting that TV’s most powerful 54-year-old woman just

might have endorsed him so fast for reasons of desirable viewer demographics as much as

personal inspiration? Certainly, no TV diva in her 50s who values her ratings wants to be

defined by the hot-flash cohort.” (Tina Brown, Newsweek, 17 March 2008)

Seasoned and experienced observers, including some from within the black community, could

also see the negative potential of the Obama youth cult. Adolph Green is a professor at the

University of Pennsylvania and notes:

There is also something disturbingly ritualistic and superficial in the Obama camp’s young

minions’ enthusiasm. Paul Krugman noted months ago that the Obamistas display a cultish

quality in the sense that they treat others’ criticism or failure to support their icon as a character

flaw or sin. The campaign even has a stock conversion narrative, which has been recycled in

print by such normally clear-headed columnists as Barbara Ehrenreich and Katha Pollitt: the

middle-aged white woman’s report of not having paid much attention to Obama early on, but

having been won over by the enthusiasm and energy of their adolescent or twenty-something

daughters. (A colleague recently reported having heard this narrative from a friend, citing the

latter’s conversion at the hands of her eighteen year old. I observed that three short years ago

the daughter was likely acting the same way about Britney Spears.) (Adolph Green, “Obama

No,” The Progressive, May 17, 2008)

REPORTS OF A MICHELLE OBAMA “HATE WHITEY” TAPE

In the late spring of 2008, rumors circulated that Karl Rove was in possession of a video tape

which showed Michelle Obama denouncing the white race or white people in the most violent and

abusive terms. This video tape was thought to represent the “October surprise” against Obama

referred to by the Clinton campaign in its conference calls, a time bomb ticking underneath the

entire Obama candidacy, capable of wiping him off the political map within a few days. This may

also have been what right-wing columnist Robert Novak had been referring to in the fall of 2007

when he reported that

the Clinton campaign is spreading the word that it’s holding back on dishing dirt on Barack

Obama, and charged the Democratic frontrunner with playing “Nixon tricks.” … Novak’s initial

report said: “Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that

she has scandalous information” about Obama, “but has decided not to use it. The nature of the

alleged scandal was not disclosed.”158

Novak’s story was published on November 19, 2007. As for Michelle, her growing reputation as

a race baiter was a growing liability for Obama’s chances. In late May 2008, Larry Johnson

reported the existence of a “hate whitey” tape depicting a racist tirade by Michelle, with vicious

attacks on white America, the “white race,” or just plain whitey in extreme terms. The tape was

reported to be in the possession of Karl Rove, who was organizing private screenings for GOP

fatcats to generate fundraising for his autumn 2008 October surprise designed to stun and defeat

Obama. By now Obama had almost repudiated Wright, but what was he going to do when the racist

rant came from Michelle?

VIII: “Our Souls Are Broken” - Michelle Obama, Postmodern Fascist Ideologue 305

There was an interesting wrinkle in the story: Johnson wrote about a right-wing Republican who

hated McCain and did not want him elected to the presidency. This right-wing moneybags was

offering a cool million to get the tape for himself, with the intent of showing it at once, thus sinking

Obama before he ever got the Democratic nomination. That way, Hillary would get the Democratic

nod in Denver, and she would of course have a much better chance of defeating McCain. It was

clear that fall 2008 would see an unprecedented battle of the scandal dossiers.

In this new phase, scandal dossiers were like ICBMs in an all-out thermonuclear exchange. The

watchword had to be, “Use ‘em or lose ‘em.” If one acquired scandal material, it had to be launched

into public view immediately, since otherwise the other side might strike first. The flaw in Rove’s

plan was that if he waited until October to unload what he had, Obama’s FBI backers might strike

first against McCain, leaving Rove with no candidate left standing. Obama, we stress again, had no

real hope of winning except by way of piloted scandals.

There can be no doubt that Michelle Obama is a racist thinker, in addition to the elements of

fascist ideology which have already been noted. Indeed, the more robust versions of fascism, like

the German one, incorporate racism and “race science” (which of course means pseudo-science in

reality) as a foundational element of the fascist outlook. In her Princeton thesis, Michelle already

swore allegiance to a race-based outlook when she wrote that she would

use all of my present and future resources to benefit [the Black] community first and

foremost… Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites…it often seems

as if, to them, I will always be black first… there is a distinctive Black culture different from

White culture…. [A] Black person may have all White friends and prefer these friends and their

activities to those with Blacks without the individual believing that he/she is White….159

This is hardly the voice of a person prepared to help a president govern in the name of all the

people.

A reported paraphrase and summary of Michelle Obama’s remarks in the reported tape soon

appeared on line: “Once again, the white man keeps us down, what’s up with Whitey, Why’d he

attack Iraq, Why’d he let Katrina happen, Why’d he leave millions of children behind. This is the

legacy the white man gives us.” 160 As the primaries were ending in Puerto Rico, Fox News Channel

carried an interview by Geraldo Rivera with Republican operative Roger Stone in which Stone

reported:

This has little to do with the general election and a lot to do with why Hillary Clinton is staying

in the race. Look, there is already a buzz in Washington at least seven news organizations have

contacted me wanting to know how to get their hands on this tape, giving me more information

than I had after I had spoken to each one of them. I now believe the tape exists and I believe a

network has it. If this pans to out to be true, based on Michelle Obama’s previous comment that

this is the first time she had been proud of her country, which I think shows an attitude, it is

problematic. (FNC 06/01/2008 14:43:30)161

MICHELLE TOGETHER WITH MRS. FARRAKHAN AND MEEKS

Soon the site HillBuzz was reporting more details about the circumstances in which Michelle

had delivered her tirade:

What’s on the Michelle Obama Rant Tape? Here’s what’s known so far: The Michelle Obama

Rant Tape was filmed between June 26th - July 1st 2004 in Chicago, IL at the Rainbow/PUSH

306 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Coalition Conference at Trinity United Church: specifically the Women’s Event. Michelle Obama

appeared as a panelist alongside Mrs. Khadijah Farrakhan and Mrs. James Meeks. Bill Clinton

spoke during the Conference, as did Bill Cosby and other speakers, but not at the panel Michelle

attended. Michelle Obama spoke at the Women’s Event, but referenced Bill Clinton in her rant —

his presence at the conference was the impetus for her raving, it seems. For about 30 minutes,

Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for

the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of

Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She

then launched into an attack on “whitey”, and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the

realm of diverting those actions onto white America. Her rant was fueled by the crowd: they reacted

strongly to what she said, so she got more passionate and enraged, and that’s when she completely

loses it and says things that have made the mouths drop of everyone who’s seen this. The “tape” is a

DVD that Trinity United sold on its website, and possibly offered free for download up until March

2008 when Trinity’s site was scrubbed and the DVDs were no longer offered for sale. This outburst

happened just one month before the 2004 Democratic Convention, when Barack Obama delivered

the keynote address.162

The trolls who make up the Obama mercenary assault sections on the Internet soon concocted an

absurd explanation of what Michelle is supposed to have said. In doing this, they may have

indicated more or less the formulations which are in fact on the tape in question. Larry Johnson

summed up the state of the case by writing:

Our thanks to Martin Longman over at Booman Tribune. He performed a public service last

night by disseminating Barack Obama talking points even before I had published my update.

Two key points–First, the Obama campaign is admitting the tape exists by ponying up a bogus

explanation. Second, they don’t dispute that Michelle is sitting at the table with Louis

Farrakhan. So, here’s what Martin posted:

My old friend, Larry Johnson, knows about manipulating elections from his training with the

Central Intelligence Agency. He doesn’t want Obama to win the nomination for whatever

reason, and he’s in full propaganda mode to do everything he can to frighten the superdelegates.

He claims to have a shocking tape of Michelle Obama ranting in some anti-white diatribe. He

promises to produce this tape tomorrow at 9am. From what I understand, it is a tape of Michelle

Obama criticizing the Bush administration.

How you’d write it:

Why did Bush cut folks off Medicaid?

Why did Bush let New Orleans drown?

Why did Bush do nothing about Jena?

Why did Bush put us in Iraq for no reason?

How you’d say it:

Why’d he cut folks off Medicaid?

Why’d he let New Orleans drown?

Why’d he do nothing about Jena?

Why’d he put us in Iraq for no reason?

How Larry Johnson wants you to hear it:

VIII: “Our Souls Are Broken” - Michelle Obama, Postmodern Fascist Ideologue 307

Whitie cut folks off Medicaid?

Whitie let New Orleans drown?

Whitie do nothing about Jena?

Whitie put us in Iraq for no reason?163

As Johnson noted, this amounted to a confirmation of some of the internal features of the tape in

question. On June 3, Bob Beckel, a Democratic Party political hack who had worked for Zbigniew

Brzezinski in the Carter National Security Council before going on to help lead Walter Mondale’s

catastrophic election campaign in 1984, commented on the Fox and Friends morning program that

he was very worried indeed about the existence of a Michelle Obama tape and about the possible

political consequences if this were revealed to the public. This incident attracted wide attention and

became known as “The Beckel Bombshell” on the Internet.164

OBAMA FAILS TO DENY EXISTENCE OF TAPE, ATTACKS QUESTIONER

On June 5, a woman reporter for the McClatchy News Service, which still tries to be a news

organization, finally asked Obama whether this tape existed or not. The Perfect Master went into

evasive maneuvers, and failed to deny that the tape exists. Instead, he pontificated about the

pervasive presence of “dirt and lies,” and then attempted to chastise the reporter for being one of the

very few who was trying to do her job. One report described the incident thus:

Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday batted down rumors circulating on the Internet and mentioned

on some cable news shows of the existence of a video of his wife using a derogatory term for

white people, and criticized a reporter for asking him about the rumor, which has not a shred of

evidence to support it. “We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in emails

and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me

about it,” Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign

plane. “That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or

anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it.”

Asked whether he knew it not to be true, Obama said he had answered the question.

“Frankly, my hope is people don’t play this game,” Obama said. “It is a destructive aspect of

our politics. Simply because something appears in an e-mail, that should lend it no more

credence than if you heard it on the corner. Presumably the job of the press is to not to go

around and spread scurrilous rumors like this until there is actually anything, an iota, of

substance or evidence that would substantiate it.”

So was it even acceptable to ask the question? Before Obama could answer, communications

director Robert Gibbs interjected: “You just did.”

“That is my point,” Obama said. “I just think people have to think about it before they ask.”

(“Obama denies a rumor and questions the question,” Politico, June 5, 2008)165

This is once again a typical Obama style to which we have become accustomed: when nailed for

some outrageous action, the candidate immediately attempts to turn the tables and to transform

himself from accused into accuser. He begins pontificating about some general moral or social evil

which he can connect to the issue in question, and begins counterattacking those who are trying to

hold him accountable. This technique of attacking the questioner is of course a favorite ploy of

George W. Bush, the current tenant of the White House, as Dr. Justin Frank has pointed out in his

study, Bush on the Couch. Since Frank concludes that Bush is a megalomaniac, and since the

present study points to megalomania as one of the salient aspects of Obama’s personality, we may

308 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

find that this technique of dodging questions (the recent archetype of which is the Jimmy Carter

malaise speech on energy policy of July 1979) is rooted in the mental dynamics of megalomania

itself.

Responding to this exchange, Larry Johnson pointed out:

If someone was accusing my wife of saying something racist that was not true, and you asked

me in public, I would say emphatically and clearly, “it is not true.” So what is Barack’s problem. …

Huh? Are you kidding me? If it ain’t true say so. But when a politician tap dances on nuance–Baby

it is true. My sources have not backed off. They maintain they have a tape and will drop it on the

Dems in the fall. Now if Barack said, “No, and hell no” I would be wondering about my sources.

But he punted. He went for the weasel word. The non-denial denial.166

So, as the summer wore on, the Michelle Obama “hate whitey” rant continued to hang over the

Obama campaign like a sword of Damocles. Would it appear in September or October? Or would

the Trilateral-Bilderberg scandal machine destroy McCain first?

CHAPTER IX: OBAMA’S TRIUMPH OF THE WILL:

THE 2008 PRIMARIES

“Barack Obama is wheezing to the finish line.” - Chris Wallace, Fox News

“My faith in the American people has been vindicated.” –Obama in Florida, May 21, 2008.

PATROCLUS :Well said, adversity! and what need these tricks?

THERSITES: Prithee, be silent, boy; I profit not by thy talk:

thou art thought to be Achilles’ male varlet.

PATROCLUS: Male varlet, you rogue! what’s that?

THERSITES: Why, his masculine whore.

- Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida.

The initial goal of the Obama-Trilateral forces was to stun all opposing candidates, and

especially Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards, by winning decisive victories in Iowa and New

Hampshire, and then setting up a clamor with the help of their brigade of media whores to demand

that all opposition candidates drop out and allow the acclamation of the Perfect Master as the

Democratic candidate. For Obama strategy to work optimally, it was essential that the Democratic

primary process be brought to an end as soon as possible, so as to rule out any possibility that

Obama’s real background might be investigated. All during 2007, the controlled corporate media

had failed abysmally in their normal task of informing the public about who this slick and

newcomer really was, including most emphatically his past associations, his own track record in

politics, and his current handlers, backers, and controllers. More accurately, the controlled

corporate media had succeeded in their appointed task of preserving a seraphic aura of postpartisan,

post-racial, post-political transcendence around their charismatic protégé. It was clear to

all that Obama’s pretensions as a messianic liberator could never stand up to even the most cursory

scrutiny. Therefore, it was essential that the primaries be ended as soon as possible so that Obama

could seize the nomination while most people still had no idea who he was. Obama was like a con

man who went from town to town plying his trade, but was always aware that he had to fleece his

dupes and move on before too long, since if he tarried, there was a good chance that his con job

strategy would be diagnosed by the authorities and he would be apprehended.

Obama strategy was that of a CIA people power coup or US backed color revolution as these

models have been applied in the Orange Revolution in Kiev, Ukraine in late 2004, and in the roses

revolution in Tiflis, Georgia a few years earlier. The color revolution model for subverting a

political process under the cover of an election included the presence of a telegenic and talented

demagogue and mob orator, the use of vast sums of money and narcotics, savvy exploitation of the

social networking sites on the Internet, the creation of an artificial media hysteria stoked by

intelligence agents inside the controlled media, catchy slogans, colors, and emblems for branding

purposes, fake polling, and rent-a-mobs and dupe-a-mobs of feckless and callow youth — the

swarming adolescents who can be easily mobilized in large numbers. These were the methods

which the Obama forces set in motion in Iowa during the winter of 2007-2008. At this time,

Senator Clinton had unwisely accepted the advice of her corrupt and mediocre campaign manager

Mark Penn, who had recently published a book arguing that there would be no more big upheavals

in American politics, but only a series of micro trends which had to be exploited one by one by

smart politicians aiming to win. The stupidity of Penn’s thesis could not have been in greater

310 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

contrast with the predictable reality that 2008 represented a watershed year of fundamental

reordering of American politics — it was a year of party realignment. Party realignment in

American history have come along every three to four decades, and have been characterized by the

majority and minority parties trading places, by the collapsible parties and the emergence of new

parties, or by other important and lasting shifts in the political landscape. 2008 was comparable to

the coming of Jacksonian Democracy in 1828, which inaugurated a time of disaster for the United

States, with a sickening slide into the greatest of all conceivable calamities, civil war. 2008 was

comparable to 1860, the year when the Lincoln Republican Party emerged out of the wreckage of

the Whigs, the Know-Nothings, and the Free Soil party, even as the Democratic Party split into two

parts thanks in large part to the treachery of Caleb Cushing, the king of the dough-faces; this cycle

allowed national unity to be preserved in a civil war and slavery to be eradicated, while setting the

stage for the United States to become the greatest industrial power that the world had ever seen.

2008 was in the same league with 1896, when the contest between William Jennings Bryan and

William McKinley gave the Republicans another cycle of dominance, but this time under the banner

of Wall Street Republicanism and the dominance of the House of Morgan, the emergence of an

invisible government controlled by financiers, the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the historical

vandalism of the US entry into World War I, all crowned by the beginnings of the Great Depression

under Herbert Hoover. 2008 might be similar to 1932, the most successful of all party realignments

in American history, which put an end to the dominance of the reactionary and pro-fascist

Republican financiers, and inaugurated the New Deal state of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the most

effective form of human organization ever seen in history, a force powerful enough to defeat

fascism, checkmate communism, open the secrets of the atom, and put humans on the moon. A

negative model for 2008 was 1968, the beginning of the Republican Southern strategy theorized by

Kevin Phillips, a retrogressive regime which consolidated itself after the horrors of Jimmy Carter

into the so-called Reagan coalition of white men, suburban voters, evangelical Christians, and the

Southern backlash against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By 2006, the Reagan coalition had

demonstrably collapsed and this fact was announced in the current cycle by Ed Rollins, at that time

running the Huckabee campaign. 2008 was therefore destined to be a year of crisis and upheaval,

and the advice given by Mark Penn to Senator Clinton was the worst possible guidance she could

have received. Mark Penn recommended that Mrs. Clinton begin during the Democratic primaries

the phase of triangulation or moving towards the center which is normally reserved for the general

election campaign in September and October. Mark Penn’s premature triangulation was the key to

Mrs. Clinton’s defeat in Iowa. If Senator Clinton had had any competent polling, she would have

seen that her excessive moderation was setting her up for defeat, but there are hints that Penn was

skewing the internal polls of the campaign so that his bad advice would seen to be successful, and

would therefore continued to be followed. Mark Penn had worked with Zbigniew Brzezinski in the

Ukrainian Orange Revolution coup of 2004, and therefore was widely suspected of divided and

conflicting loyalties. When Obama won the Iowa caucus, there was grave danger that the

Democratic primaries would be over in less than a week, and that the process of politicization and

political education that the primaries implied would be a boarded and brought to a premature end.

This was the fervent wish of the Wall Street financiers who constitute the US ruling class, since

they much prefer the American people to be kept in an apolitical stupor of apathy and resignation.

OBAMA’S COUP SLOWED BY CLINTON AND EDWARDS

To Senator Clinton above all, and to some extent to Senator Edwards, goes the merit of having

foiled Obama’s plan for a cold coup d’état. By bouncing back from her disappointing third-place

finish in Iowa to win the New Hampshire primary, Clinton saved the Democratic Party and perhaps

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 311

the United States as a whole from the terrible consequences of having the Democratic nomination

seized through a lightning campaign by a totally unknown political adventurer and con artist.

Senator Clinton was doubtless helped by the fact that New Hampshire voters had already been

exposed to the specific brand of demagogy which Obama was peddling. In New Hampshire, as

well as in Rhode Island, the main local television channels come from Boston, and therefore reflect

the internal politics of Massachusetts into these two nearby states. In 2006, Deval Patrick had been

elected as the first black governor of Massachusetts. Patrick’s campaign manager had been the

Chicago ward heeler David Axelrod, a member of the corrupt Daley machine who had specialized

in getting black candidates elected in situations where it was indispensable for them to obtain

significant numbers of white votes. Axelrod had attempted to solve this problem by recommending

that the black candidates he advised employee a vague and aspirational rhetoric of messianic

slogans and glittering utopian generalities, making the grubby details of another cynical exercise in

political hucksterism and corruption into a sublime idealistic quest. Axelrod had found that this

approach would deliver sizable support from affluent white voters and college youth which, when

supplemented by strong turnout from black inner-city voters, would often carry his candidates to

victory. But Patrick was failing as Governor of Massachusetts and voters there had been soured by

the Obama formula.

OBAMA: MANIPULATING AMERICAN VOTERS

AS ETHNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL

Even before Obama’s “Bittergate” remarks in San Francisco, the acerbic Spengler of Asia Times

had diagnosed Obama’s method of profiling and manipulating the American people: he was an

anthropologist, true to his mother’s method, doing field work, and reducing American voters to

ethnographic material in the process: ‘Obama profiles Americans the way anthropologists interact

with primitive peoples. He holds his own view in reserve and emphatically draws out the feelings of

others; that is how friends and colleagues describe his modus operandi since his days at the Harvard

Law Review, through his years as a community activist in Chicago, and in national politics.

Anthropologists, though, proceed from resentment against the devouring culture of America and

sympathy with the endangered cultures of the primitive world. Obama inverts the anthropological

model: he applies the tools of cultural manipulation out of resentment against America. The

probable next president of the United States is a mother’s revenge against the America she despised.

(Spengler, Asia Times, Feb. 26, 2008) The lesson was that if you do not have a full set economy,

including nuclear energy, you risk becoming ethnographic material in today’s world.

MESSIANIC AND UTOPIAN: THE IOWA TELEPROMPTER SPEECH

During and right after the Iowa caucuses, Obama began to attract attention as an orator. His

preference was to deliver a speech off a teleprompter before a huge crow in a stadium or sports

arena. The parallels to the Mussolini balcony speech or the later German Nuremberg party rallies

were overwhelming, but were seldom pointed out by the corrupt US corporate media. As Spengler

noted, ‘There is nothing mysterious about Obama’s methods. “A demagogue tries to sound as stupid

as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is,” wrote Karl Krauss. Americans are

the world’s biggest suckers, and laugh at this weakness in their popular culture. Listening to Obama

speak, Sinclair Lewis’ cynical tent-revivalist Elmer Gantry comes to mind, or, even better, Tyrone

Power’s portrayal of a carnival mentalist in the 1947 film noir Nightmare Alley. The latter is

available for instant viewing at Netflix, and highly recommended as an antidote to having felt

uplifted by an Obama speech. America has the great misfortune to have encountered Obama at the

312 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

peak of his powers at its worst moment of vulnerability in a generation. With malice aforethought,

he has sought out their sore point. This reversal has provoked a national mood of existential crisis.

In Europe, economic downturns do not inspire this kind of soul-searching, for richer are poorer,

remain what they always have been. But Americans are what they make of themselves, and the slim

makings of 2008 shake their sense of identity. Americans have no institutionalized culture to fall

back on. Their national religion has consisted of waves of enthusiasm - “Great Awakenings” –

every second generation or so, followed by an interim of apathy. In times of stress they have a

baleful susceptibility to hucksters and conmen. Be afraid - be very afraid. America is at a low point

in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself.’ (Spengler, Asia Times, Feb. 26, 2008)

THE DYNAMICS OF THE MASS MEETING

It was above all on the night that Obama won the Iowa caucus that the world began to see the

fully developed technique of Obama’s mass meetings, with hysterical crowds and teleprompter

delivery. All the well-worn clichés warning that those who fail to understand history are condemned

to repeat it now became operative, with a vengeance. American politics was rushing backward in

time to postwar Italy and depression-era Germany: the hour of the demagogue and mob orator was

at hand. Fascism had already been tried once, and it had failed. Now, American society had been

schooled in top-down totalitarianism for eight years by the Bush-Cheney-neocon regime, which had

brought military defeat and world economic depression. Now the ruling elite was reversing its field,

and trying a bottom-up approach to the demolition of real representative democracy. American were

however ignorant of the main internal features of fascist movements of the recent past. Would they

fall victim so easily to postmodern fascism? The founder of National Socialism had famously

argued that the masses were always and everywhere characterized by irrationalism: ‘“The people

(das Volk) are in their overwhelming majority so womanly in their views and attitudes that their

thought and action are much less determined by sober reflection than by emotional feelings.” The

goal of mass meetings of the Obama type is to attack the faculties of reason and free will in the

audience. As Georg Lukacs commented, National Socialism “wants manipulation instead of

convincing arguments, wants to create by any means necessary a sultry atmosphere of blind belief

and hysterical gullibility on the part of despairing people. Here again the struggle of existentialist

philosophy (Lebensphilosophie) against reason — quite apart from how much existentialism Hitler

may have known — forms the basis in terms of world outlook for a pure technique of demagogy.

Hitler’s ‘originality’ consists in the fact that he was the first to apply American advertising methods

in German politics and propaganda. His goal was to dumb down and swindle the masses. In his

principal work he confesses that his goal is demagogy and the breaking of the free will and

cognitive faculty of people. The only question that Hitler ever thoroughly and conscientiously

studied is by what tricks this goal can be reached. Here he discusses all possible external details of

manipulation and the manipulability of the masses.” (Lukacs, Zerstörung der Vernunft, 630-631)

Hitler was very explicit about the goals of his mass meeting: they were cynically planned as a

systematic assault on human reason and human freedom: “In all these cases we are seeking to erode

the freedom of the human will. And that is true especially of meetings where there are men whose

wills are opposed to the speaker and who must be brought around to a new way of thinking. In the

morning and during the day it seems that the power of the human will rebels with its strongest

energy against any attempt to impose upon it the will or opinion of another. On the other hand, in

the evening it easily succumbs to the domination of a stronger will. Because really in such

assemblies there is a contest between two opposite forces. The superior oratorical art of a man who

has the compelling character of an apostle will succeed better in bringing around to a new way of

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 313

thinking those who have naturally been subjected to a weakening of their forces of resistance rather

than in converting those who are in full possession of their volitional and intellectual energies.”

(Mein Kampf, vol. II, chapter 6) Lukacs comments: “Hitler’s propaganda technique is closely

related to one of the few honest points in his entire world outlook: he is a passionate enemy of

objective truth and fights against objectivity in every aspect of his life.” (Lukacs 631) Hitler also

commented: “The masses are like an animal that obeys its instincts…. I have been reproached for

making the masses fanatics and ecstatic. In the opinion of these wiseacres, the masses must be

soothed and kept in apathy. No, gentlemen, the reverse is true. I can lead the masses only if I tear

them out of their apathy. Only a fanatic mass can be swayed. A master this apathetic and dull is the

greatest threat to unity.” And he continued: “At a mass meeting, thought is eliminated. And

because this is the state of mind I require, because it secures me the best sounding board for my

speeches, I order everyone to attend the meetings, will become part of the mass whether they like it

or not, ‘intellectuals’ and bourgeois as well as workers. I mingle with the people. I speak to them

only as the mass. I am conscious that I have no equal in the art of swaying the masses, not even

Goebbels…. And remember this: the bigger the crowd, the more easily it is swayed…. Don’t waste

time over ‘intellectual’ meetings and groups drawn together by mutual interests. Anything you may

achieve with such folk today by means of reasonable explanation may be erased tomorrow by an

opposite explanation. But what you tell the people in the mass, in a receptive state a fanatic

devotion, will remain like words received under a hypnotic influence, ineradicable, and impervious

to every reasonable explanation. (Hitler to Rauschning, Voice of Destruction, 211-212)

SUBPRIME OBAMA

At the same time, Obama continued to run to the right of the rest of the Democratic candidates,

to the right of Clinton and far to the right of Edwards, if the latter’s speeches could be believed.

Even some writers for The Nation began to realize that Obama was an apostle of right-wing

economics, especially in refusing to halt foreclosures; their shortcoming was that they failed to see

how destructive Obama’s economic approach would actually be: ‘Only Obama has not called for a

moratorium and interest-rate freeze. Though he has been a proponent of mortgage fraud legislation

in the Senate, he has remained silent on further financial regulations. And much like his broader

economic stimulus package, Obama’s foreclosure plan mostly avoids direct government spending in

favor of a tax credit for homeowners, which amounts to about $500 on average, beyond which only

certain borrowers would be eligible for help from an additional fund. “One advantage to the tax

credit is that there’s no moral hazard involved,” one of Obama’s economic advisers explains.

“There’s no sense in which you’re rewarding someone for taking too big a risk. If you lied about

your income in order to get a bigger mortgage, then you’re not qualified. Do you really want to give

a subsidy to the guy who wasn’t prudent?” Obama has used similar language on the campaign trail.

“Innocent homeowners,” he has promised, those “responsible” borrowers “facing foreclosure

through no fault of their own,” would get help restructuring their loans. But no such luck for those

“claiming income they didn’t have” or “lying to get mortgages.” “There’s been less emphasis from

the Obama campaign on the really dysfunctional role of the financial industry in the subprime

mess,” says Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute. “Edwards and Clinton talk much more

about regulation of the financial industry going forward, and to the extent that blame is placed, they

tend to place it on the lenders for steering people into loans they couldn’t afford.” Obama’s

disappointing foreclosure plan stems from the centrist politics of his three chief economic advisers

and his campaign’s ties to Wall Street institutions opposed to increased financial regulation. David

Cutler and Jeffrey Liebman are both Harvard economists who served in the Clinton Administration,

and they work on market-oriented solutions to social welfare issues. Cutler advocates improving

314 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

healthcare through financial incentives; Liebman, the partial privatization of Social Security. Austan

Goolsbee, an economist at the University of Chicago who calls himself a “centrist market

economist,” has been most directly involved with crafting Obama’s subprime agenda. In a column

last March in the New York Times, Goolsbee disputed whether “subprime lending was the leading

cause of foreclosure problems,” touted its benefits for credit-poor minority borrowers and warned

that “regulators should be mindful of the potential downside in tightening [the mortgage market] too

much.” In October, no less a conservative luminary than George Will devoted a whole column in

the Washington Post to saluting Goolsbee’s “nuanced understanding” of traditional Democratic

issues like globalization and income inequality and concluded that he “seems to be the sort of

fellow – amiable, empirical, and reasonable – you would want at the elbow of a Democratic

president, if such there must be.” … Wall Street apparently has come to a similar conclusion.

Obama had received nearly $10 million in contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate

sector through October, and he’s second among presidential candidates of either party in money

raised from commercial banks, trailing only Clinton. Goldman Sachs, which made $6 billion from

devalued mortgage securities in the first nine months of 2007, is Obama’s top contributor. When

asked if Obama would hold these financial institutions accountable for losses incurred by

homeowners and investors, his campaign refused to comment.’ (Max Fraser, “Sub-prime Obama”

The Nation, February 110, 2008) Soon Goolsbee went into eclipse because he had warned the

Canadian government that Obama’s criticism of free trade sellouts like NAFTA was just demagogy

for the campaign trail to edify the plebs. Goolsbee was then supplanted by Jason Furman, another

monetarist. Well-informed sources from Goldman Sachs reported that the word on the Street was

that Furman, like Jeffrey Liebman, was on board with the idea of privatizing Social Security as a

means of “saving” it – the same policy that Bush had tried and failed to impose in 2005.

OBAMA USES RACISM, HOMOPHOBIA TO WIN SOUTH CAROLINA

Desperate to rebuild the momentum of his coup after his loss to Clinton in New Hampshire,

Obama turned to the most disreputable allies and methods in his bid to win South Carolina. Obama

turned to Reverend McClurkin, a local Elmer Gantry, to whip up support among the black churches.

One commentator noted, ‘Obama’s reliance on McClurkin, a homophobic black minister, to deliver

the black vote in South Carolina was eye-opening. What’s even worse, McClurkin is gay.’ This

combination of public homophobia on the part of public figures who are themselves homosexual

has been one of the hallmarks of recent Republican rule, as the Mark Foley and Larry Craig

scandals have underlined; Obama represents more of the same in this department. Obama also

developed a coded speech with which to appeal to South Carolina black voters, using echoes of

speeches by Malcolm X which would be understood by some of his listeners, but not by others. It

was a two-tiered technique, and rightly merited the name of duplicity. Here is a sample: ‘As the

South Carolina primary campaign built to a climax, Obama addressed a largely African-American

audience in Sumter. … Obama drops his eloquent Harvard accent, and says, “They’re trying to

bamboozle you. It’s the same old okie-dokie. — Y’all know about okie dokie, right? — They try to

bamboozle you. — Hoodwink ya. Try to hoodwink ya. Alright. — I’m having too much fun

here....” This speech had been borrowed from one of Obama’s heroes, Malcolm X, who said,

“You’ve been hoodwinked. You’ve been had. You’ve been took. You’ve been led astray, led amok.

You’ve been bamboozled.” It is strange that a candidate, who belongs to an “Afrocentric” church,

that bestows awards on Louis Farrakhan, would borrow from Malcolm X, who was a spokesman for

the Nation of Islam, right before complaining about e-mails claiming he is Muslim.’167

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 315

OBAMA AND DEVAL PATRICK:

CLONES OF THE TRILATERAL MOTHER SHIP

When it was discovered in New Hampshire in 1987 that Senator Joe Biden, then running for

president, had lifted entire passages out of a speech by British Labour Party leader Neal Kinnock

and spouted them on the campaign trail, Biden had been buffeted by a tide of ridicule so merciless

that he was forced to drop out of the race in just a few days. Over the past twenty years, US political

standards had deteriorated sharply. Obama has been caught spouting passages already used in the

campaigns of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, another client of Obama’s chief sophist,

David Axelrod. Patrick is in all probability a clone of the same Trilateral mother ship which runs

Obama. Patrick can in fact be viewed as Brzezinski’s spare Obama, a fall-back option who might

have been mobilized if Obama had overdosed or been apprehended in some nefarious activity.168

But this time Obama, unlike Biden two decades ago, was not forced to drop out. Public morality,

we see, had taken a massive turn for the worse.

Here is Deval Patrick on June 3, 2006, according to a YouTube video: “I am not asking anybody

to take a chance on ME. I’m asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations.” Here is Barack

Obama on Nov. 2, 2007 in Manning, S.C., according to a YouTube video: “I’m not just asking you

to take a chance on ME. I’m also asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations.” Another

quote from Obama, this time responding to the criticism that he is nothing but a word monger:

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream’ — just words? ‘We hold these truths to be selfevident,

that all men are created equal’ — just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ —

just words? Just speeches?” Here now is Patrick responding to a similar stricture: “‘We hold these

truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words? Just words? ‘We have

nothing to fear but fear itself’ — just words? ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what

you can do for your country.’ Just words? ‘I have a dream’ — just words?” Blogger Taylor Marsh,

who would end up drinking the Kool-Aid for Obama, summed up that Obama’s classic line would

never be “I have a dream.” Much more appropriate for the senator would be “I have a con.”

OBAMA: DUMMY; ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: VENTRILOQUIST

In my book Obama – The Postmodern Coup: The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, I argue

that presidential candidate Barack Obama is a wholly-owned puppet of Zbigniew Brzezinski and his

associates of the Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller. As some have noted,

Brzezinski has been attempting to conceal his actual domination of the Obama campaign, for which

he is the chief guru and controller. Now a rhetorical outburst by Obama on the campaign trail in

Oregon at the close of the primaries once again pointed to the reality that Obama is a ventriloquist’s

dummy, with the Russia-hating fanatic Brzezinski, a barbarous relic of the Cold War, acting as the

ventriloquist.

At a campaign stop in Oregon, Obama intoned:

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all

times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said. “That’s

not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added. If India and China’s “carbon footprint

gets as big as ours, we’re gone.” (AFP)

This remarkable statement reveals the true program of a future Obama administration: savage

austerity, brutal economic sacrifice, and a massive further reduction in the standard of living of the

depleted and exhausted US population – as demanded by David Rockefeller, George Soros, and

316 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Obama’s Wall Street backers. This will be done under left cover – through a global warming tax, a

third world solidarity tax, and other demagogic frauds, with the revenue going to bail out Goldman

Sachs, Citibank, and JP Morgan Chase. The tired, discredited post-9/11 “war on terror” slogans will

be largely dumped. Most interesting is that Obama’s sound bytes are actually a sloganized version

of a key passage from Zbigniew Brzezinski’s recent book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the

Crisis of American Superpower.169 This book contains Zbig’s desperate strategy for preserving the

crisis-ridden US-UK world empire, including by making the US “social model” more attractive to

developing sector publics. Zbig writes:

In mutually compounding ways, material self-indulgence, persistent social shortcomings, and

public ignorance about the world increase the difficulty the American democracy faces in

formulating a globally appealing platform for effective world leadership. Americans must

recognize that their patterns of consumption will soon collide head-on with increasingly

impatient egalitarian aspirations. Whether through the exploitation of natural resources,

excessive energy consumption, indifference to global ecology, or the exorbitant size of houses

for the well-to-do, indulgent self-gratification at home conveys indifference to the persisting

deprivations of much of the world. (Just try to imagine a world in which 2.5 billion Chinese and

Indians consume as much energy per capita as Americans do.) That reality the American public

has yet to assimilate. To lead, America must not only be sensitive to global realities. It must

also be socially attractive. That calls for a broader national consensus in favor of correcting the

key failings of the American social model.

OBAMA’S OLIVER TWIST MOMENT

Obama has thus unmasked himself as the exterminating angel of super-austerity dictated by the

elitist Trilateral bankers’ clique. Will he cut the current US standard of living by 40%? By 50%?

When he does, will he still call it the politics of hope? The rhetoric recalls the malaise of the earlier

Trilateral puppet and austerity fanatic Jimmy Carter, but it goes much further. Is every American

child to be put on rations, like Oliver Twist, and forbidden to ask for some more? Obama is eager

for this kind of cruelty. Obama has been trained to hate the American people through two decades

of association with hate-mongers like Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and

Brzezinski himself. For Rockefeller and Soros, Obama’s hatred of the American people is a positive

guarantee that he will enforce Wall Street’s austerity decrees with a vengeance. Forget the utopian

platitudes and the messianic rhetoric: Obama’s real economic program is now clear for all to see. It

is a path that leads to genocide against the US population, among others.

Obama’s Oregon outburst also needs to be read in the light of earlier unguarded statements by

Michelle Obama, who, as we have seen, has said at various times in her stump speech: “…before

we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls - our souls are broken in this nation. If we

can’t see ourselves in one another, we will never make those sacrifices….We need a different

leadership because our souls are broken. We need to be inspired...to make the sacrifices that are

needed to push us to a different place…. The change Barack is talking about is hard, so don’t get

too excited because Barack is going to demand that you too be different.” Here the theme of

purification and redemption by means of sacrifice and economic austerity is clearly conveyed. Now

Barack has begun to fill in the details.

Insiders have long recognized that Zbigniew Brzezinski (helped by his son Mark) owns and runs

Obama. David Ignatius has pointed to Second Chance as a scenario for a future Obama

administration. Ignatius commented over a year ago: “Zbigniew Brzezinski has written a new book

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 317

that might be a foreign policy manifesto for Barack Obama… The most intriguing part of

Brzezinski’s book is what I would describe as the Obama manifesto. (David Ignatius, “A Manifesto

for the Next President,” Washington Post, March 14, 2007) It has also long been known that Zbig

does the thinking for Obama; the London Economist last year hailed “a new brain for Barack

Obama! It’s 78 years old and it still works perfectly. It belongs to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the peppery

ex-national security adviser to Jimmy Carter.” (“A New Brain for Barack Obama, Economist.com,

March 14, 2007) Obama’s campaign has long been attacking Bush from the right, criticizing the

current regime for not exploiting 9/11 to impose savage economic austerity, as seen in Samantha

Power’s “monster” interview. We now have good evidence that Obama will flay the American

people alive with his elitist economic policies. Obama had committed a major error by showing his

hand. Would voters react in time to stop him?

OBAMAKINS AND NEOCONS SUPPORT THE SAVIOR

One area where Obama enjoyed strong support was at the arch-reactionary, Rockefeller-funded

University of Chicago, and especially among the neocons of the law school there. A middleman

between these neocons and the Obama campaign was evidently Cass Sunstein, who was considered

something of an antiwar liberal. Sunstein expressed his support for Obama in oblique but

unmistakable terms: ‘The University of Chicago Law School is by far the most conservative of the

great American law schools. It helped to provide the academic foundations for many positions of

the Reagan administration. But at the University of Chicago, Obama is liked and admired by

Republicans and Democrats alike. Some of the local Reagan enthusiasts are Obama supporters… he

appreciates the virtues and power of free markets. I do not deny that skeptics are raising legitimate

questions. After all, Obama has served in the Senate for a short period (less than four years) and he

has little managerial experience. Is he really equipped to lead the most powerful nation in the

world? Obama speaks of “change”, but will he be able to produce large-scale changes in a short

time? What if he fails? An independent issue is that all the enthusiasm might serve to insulate him

from criticisms and challenges on the part of his own advisers — and, in view of his relative youth,

criticisms and challenges are exactly what he requires.’ (Cass Sunstein, Huffington Post, March 5,

2008)

TEXAS: OBAMA PLAYS THE RACE CARD ONCE AGAIN

Obama confesses in his memoirs that he has a very good understanding of how the race card can

be used by a black candidate in an election where white votes were also important; he cites the

example of Chicago’s first black mayor, Harold Washington: ‘Black politicians less gifted than

Harold discovered what white politicians had known for a very long time: that race-baiting could

make up for a host of limitations. Young leaders, eager to make a name for themselves, upped the

ante, peddling conspiracy theories all over town - the Koreans were funding the Klan, Jewish

doctors were injecting black babies with the AIDS virus. It was a short cut to fame, if not always

fortune; like sex, or violence on TV, black rage always found a ready market.’(Dreams 203) Obama

himself played the race card with brutality, but under a mask of moderation; he also knew the

importance of letting his surrogates and backers do a lot of this dirty work. One example is

Obama’s response to Clinton’s Texas television ad about the 3 AM phone call to the White House,

which was meant to raise doubts about Obama’s reliability in national security emergencies. Obama

found a bizarre surrogate who was able to turn the whole thing into a race issue, where Obama

thought he had the advantage: The Clinton campaign had produced a television ad which depicted a

family scene with parents watching over their sleeping children. Then the camera shifted to the

318 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

White House, where Senator Clinton was shown answering an emergency telephone call at 3 AM in

what was obviously some sort of national security emergency. The suggested theme was that

Senator Clinton was prepared for the awesome responsibilities of the presidency, specifically in the

areas of national defense and crisis management. The Obama campaign immediately screamed that

this was a highly negative ad – despite the obvious fact that Obama’s name was not even

mentioned. Not content with this, the Obominables trotted out the Harvard sociology professor

Orlando Patterson, a black man in a postmodernist Mao suit, who proclaimed that he had discovered

a racist and nefarious subliminal message in Clinton’s ad – the emergency implied was in his view a

prowler or thief trying to break into the house, and, given, the southern state where the ad was being

shown, that thief or prowler could only be a black man! It was a salto mortale of the worst kind,

buttressed by the kind of impressionistic deconstructionism pioneered by the late Jacques Derrida.

Patterson’s charges were absurd, and he was exposing himself as an opportunist and charlatan. This

amazing outburst was answered by Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, who was emerging as one of

the most incisive critics of the Obama campaign’s duplicitous hypocrisy on the race issue. Wilentz

commented: ‘Reading Orlando Patterson’s op-ed in the New York Times, “The Red Phone in Black

and White,” is a depressing experience. Not only does the piece scurrilously accuse Hillary

Clinton’s campaign of cutting an ad that borrows from the filmmaker D.W. Griffith’s glorification

of the Ku Klux Klan. Not only is this attack based on a Clinton advertisement about national

security, not domestic policy (let alone race), that required a singularly tortured and biased “close

reading” by Patterson to reach its conclusions. What is truly depressing is that the essay fits what

has become a troubling and familiar pattern by the Obama campaign and its fervent supporters to

inject racial politics on the eve of yet another Democratic primary in a Southern state, in this case

Mississippi, where African-American voters are expected to vote in large numbers. […] In Texas,

Ohio, and Rhode Island on March 4, as earlier in New Hampshire, the Obama campaign did not

achieve the knock-out blow it expected and predicted. Indeed, just before those primaries and since,

Obama’s camp started to receive serious criticism and scrutiny for the first time, over the

candidate’s connections to indicted Chicago fixer Tony Rezko, and over the amateurish and

revealing actions of senior advisers Austan Goolsbee, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power. The

campaign has turned to double-talk and to stonewalling the press. And once again, it has lashed out

by playing racial politics while accusing the Clinton campaign of playing the very same game.

Interpreting the Clinton 3 A.M. phone ad on preparedness and national security as a hidden appeal

to white racism takes a remarkable bit of bad faith on the part of Professor Patterson. But the bad

faith is not restricted to him alone. Earlier in the campaign, in speeches to black audiences, Obama

mouthed lines generally believed to come from Malcolm X about how African-Americans were

being “bamboozled” and “hoodwinked” by white oppressors and Uncle Toms – except that the lines

were not actually Malcolm’s but were scripted for Denzel Washington playing Malcolm X in Spike

Lee’s movie. Now, in Mississippi, Obama is talking about blacks being bamboozled and

hoodwinked again. Then, after Obama conceded that Clinton had nothing to do with the ridiculous

posting on the disreputable Drudge Report of a picture of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress –

supposedly an appeal to racial and religious fears – he now is telling the voters of Mississippi that

in fact she was responsible for the photo’s appearance, and that she did it in order to scare people –

a charge he well knows to be untrue. In the televised debate in Ohio on February 26, Obama said

that “I take Senator Clinton at her word that she knew nothing about the photo. So I think that’s

something that we can set aside.” But on March 10 in Jackson, Mississippi, he declared, “When in

the midst of a campaign you decide to throw the kitchen sink at your opponent because you’re

behind, and your campaign starts leaking photographs of me when I’m traveling overseas wearing

the native clothes of those folks to make people afraid ... that’s not real change” The flip-flopping

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 319

is bad enough, even if the press corps does not always report it. But the cynical race politics by

Obama and his passionate followers, is toxic, not just for this campaign but for American political

life.’ (Sean Wilentz, “Hold On--’3 A.M.’ Wasn’t Racist — Obama supporters cry wolf on race

again,” New Republic online, posted March 11, 2008)

CRAIG CRAWFORD: ANTI-CLINTON MEDIA BIAS

“BORDERS ON MENTAL ILLNESS”

Another commentator who was capable of seeing through the Obama racist smokescreen was

Craig Crawford, a veteran political operative and journalist who generally knew what he was

talking about. He made the following remarks one morning on MSNBC Obamavision in response to

the moronic anti-Clinton spurious spinning by Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski:

CRAWFORD: You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month. And I have

watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media

borders on mental illness. I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney [Spears], he

ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we’ve

gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if

you try to say, “Well, where’s the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?” you’re accused

of being a naïve shill for the Clintons. I mean, I think if somebody came out today and said that

Bill Clinton — if the town drunk in Columbia [South Carolina] came out and said, “Bill Clinton

last night was poisoning the drinking water in Obama precincts,” the media would say, “Ah,

there goes Clinton again. You can’t trust him.” I really think it’s a problem. You know what?

You guys make him stronger with this bashing. This actually is what makes the Clintons

stronger.

Crawford was right in recalling that Bill Clinton’s greatest gift during the 1990s was his ability

to position himself in the center, making his opponents seem like extremists and haters. It was in

this way that Clinton was able to defeat the Gingrich budget coup attempt of 1995 and later the

impeachment coup of 1999. Would this same method finally defeat Obama?

SHELBY STEELE: OBAMA NEGLECTED TO BECOME HIMSELF

The black conservative Shelby Steele has pointed out the tremendous internal stresses and

strains to which Obama is subject as he increasingly masks his own views and professes opinions

which are calculated to appeal to large groups of white voters. Steele classes Obama as a bargainer

who survives by making deals with the white power structure, but who avoids open challenges to

oppression. This makes Obama different from types like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who

operate by constantly challenging the moral justifications of the white minority; these latter are seen

as far more threatening. It is not a very profound analysis, but it does offer some useful insights.

Steele writes: ‘No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama

to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining),

and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His is the story of a

man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself.”170 Steele observes that Obama has

embraced what he calls a black identity: “There is a price to be paid even for fellow-traveling with a

racial identity as politicized and demanding as today’s black identity. This identity wants to take

over a greater proportion of the self than other racial identities do. It wants to have its collective

truth-its defining ideas of grievance and protest-become personal truth.... These are the identity

pressures that Barack Obama lives within. He is vulnerable to them because he has hungered for a

320 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

transparent black identity much of his life. He needs to ‘be black.’ And this hunger—no matter how

understandable it may be—means that he is not in a position to reject the political liberalism

inherent in his racial identity. For Obama liberalism is blackness.”171 But Steele has failed to

historicize the “black identity” he is talking about. Obama’s version of the black identity is the post-

1965 black identity as it has been manufactured by foundation-funded intellectuals and social

movements under the reign of affirmative action and multiculturalism, which have failed to solve

the problems of the black inner-city ghetto. The reason this synthetic black identity is so destructive

and consumes so much of the self is that it has been designed to be self-destructive and selfdefeating

by the foundation mind-benders. The contradictions related to the foundation-funded

black identity continue to explode into public view around the demonic figure of Reverend Wright:

‘…nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama’s political aspirations than the revelation that

he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday — for 20 years — in an Afrocentric, black

nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel

comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and

Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage (“God damn America”). How does one “transcend” race

in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American

black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no

place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two

daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol? What

could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn’t thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need

to “be black” despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred

seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn’t this hatred more

rhetorical than real? But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually

hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as

a way of bonding and of asserting one’s blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America’s

television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real

hatred. No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to

make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining),

and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity….’ (Shelby Steele,

“The Obama Bargain,’ Wall Street Journal, March 18, 2008) In early July, Jesse Jackson noted

correctly that Obama was talking more and more about personal responsibility for the black family

and the black community, and less and less about the need for government intervention to fight

poverty and exclusion. Jackson was right to say that this amounted to talking down to the black

community. The answer, however, was that the entire foundation race-based divide-and-conquer

approach had to be junked, and replaced with class-based, color-blind New Deal programs for jobs,

housing, education and health care that attacked poverty as an empirically measurable phenomenon

among all groups in the US population, rather than attempting to deal with accumulated grievances,

where the black overclass would always demand the lion’s share of the available benefits. To tell

people of any color that they have to use self-reliance and family values in the midst of a world

economic depression caused by Wall Streets $1 quadrillion derivatives bubble, with dollar

hyperinflation, banking panic, systemic breakdown, the death agony of the US dollar as a reserve

currency, and chain-reaction bankruptcies ripping through the landscape – that is sheer genocidal

madness. It was time for New Deal measures for economic recovery and the general welfare, and

those were necessarily color-blind measures to help the poor of all races, creeds, and national

origins. This was the very outcome that Obama had been deployed by the Trilateral financiers to

prevent, so Jesse Jackson was on to something.

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 321

OBAMA CAMPAIGN: WE NEED MORE WHITE PEOPLE

Obama’s campaign was relentlessly obsessed with race, in a number of directions. The following

account from Gateway Pundit deals with a campaign event at Carnegie Mellon University near

Pittsburgh on April 2, 2008. Michelle Obama’s handlers noticed that the television framing of the

speakers’ platform was going to show too many non-white faces. They therefore proceeded in a

blatant and ham-handed way to expel an Asian woman from the shot, while moving in a white face.

‘So just as Teresa Heinz Kerry, the woman who supports the lifestyle of the man whole sold the

Democrats down the river four years ago, was about to introduce the woman who took more than 40

years to be “proud of America,” suddenly……. gasp!… suddenly…….somebody noticed

something: While the crowd was indeed diverse, some students at the event questioned the practices

of Mrs. Obama’s event coordinators, who handpicked the crowd sitting behind Mrs. Obama. The

Tartan’s correspondents observed one event coordinator say to another, “Get me more white

people, we need more white people.” To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said,

“We’re moving you, sorry. It’s going to look so pretty, though.” “I didn’t know they would say,

‘We need a white person here,’” said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who

sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. “I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick

up people and to reseat them, I didn’t know it would be so outright.”’ (Gateway Pundit, “Giving

Hope a Comeback,” April 2, 2008) It looked rather like the old politics.

OBAMA WEAKENED IN THE COURSE OF THE PRIMARIES

In the wake of the Texas-Ohio-Rhode Island results, the Clinton campaign began to argue more

in detail that the public’s honeymoon with Obama had now passed its apex, and that his campaign

was beginning to ebb. Their statistics were based on the inherently unreliable exit polls, but might

still have indicated the beginnings of a sea-change. Clinton’s people claimed that “…just a few

weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland.

He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in

Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland,

53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia

and Wisconsin. But now Obama’s support has dropped among all these groups. In Mississippi, he

won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men,

41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of

Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats. Why are

so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state? In the last few weeks,

questions have arisen about Obama’s readiness to be president. In Virginia, 56% of Democratic

primary voters said Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That number fell to 37%

in Ohio, 35% in Rhode Island and 39% in Texas. So the late deciders - those making up their minds

in the last days before the election - have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made

their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only

43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island.” (Clinton Campaign,

“Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground,” March 12, 2008)

WAS OBAMA’S CAUCUS SUPERIORITY BASED ON HOOLIGAN DISRUPTION?

For weeks it had been assumed that Obama’s superiority and caucus states had been based on the

obvious advantage he held among rich elitists, affluent suburbanites, left liberal ideologues, and

Obama groupies, fanatics, and personality cultists — namely that all these groups were much more

322 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

likely to spend two or three hours going to a party caucus and hobnobbing with their peers then

were the low-wage hourly workers, housewives, and other working people who were far more

likely to support Senator Clinton. But was there another dimension beyond this? Had the Obama

people power coup developed a playbook of tactics to disrupt and subvert the caucuses? One

reported commented: ‘I have obtained a copy of a memo written by a Clinton campaign volunteer in

Washington state intended only for other Clinton volunteers in subsequent caucus states

(specifically for Texas campaign volunteers). It warns them of “caucus disruption strategies” by

supporters of Sen. Barack Obama. The memo was written by a University of North Carolina

professor emerita of anthropology who served as a volunteer Clinton precinct committee officer in

the Washington state caucuses last month. It warned other volunteer organizers about so-called

“strategies” alleged to have been observed by herself and by Clinton volunteers in Iowa and

Nevada: … Individuals arriving all at once in large groups can disrupt the caucus by making it

difficult to keep track of sign-in sheets, among other things…Other behaviors that can make it

difficult for the caucus to run smoothly are deliberate disruptions with things like chanting, sign

waving, dancing or singing. The Precinct Chair (or Caucus Chair) will need to insist on order.

Individuals may arrive who are not registered to vote in a particular precinct with the story that

‘they just moved there.’ Some places where this has been observed, the person really didn’t fit the

picture of somebody who had ‘just moved into’ the precinct. They were allowed to register to vote

and to caucus….Supporters for a particular candidate, such as Senator Clinton, have arrived at

caucus sites early to decorate and organize and been told that ‘the building was locked.’ When they

are finally allowed into the building they see that signs for other candidates had already been

posted. Bottom line: know who you are dealing with in terms of the caucus coordinator ... This will

usually be some volunteer for the local Democratic Party.” (Bonnie Erbe, “Democratic caucus

disruptions,” Scripps Howard News Service, March 12, 2008)

There was also this eyewitness account from Pacific John of El Paso, Texas: ‘In one example of

fraud that I witnessed, one of my precinct captains, an elderly Hispanic woman, called me to report

that BHO supporters had illegally seized control of the convention. During our series of phone calls,

Mrs. “A.” reported that the Obama people took the convention materials and did not have a legal

election of officers. Like nearly all of El Paso, BHO people would have lost such an election in this

majority-Hillary, Hispanic, mostly elderly precinct convention. The Obama people ordered Mrs. A.

to sit across the room during the delegate calculation, and excluded Hillary supporters from the

process. Mrs. A. overheard an Obama supporter call in a false delegate count to Austin. In a 13

delegate precinct where Obama should have won approximately 4 delegates, the Obama supporters

attempted to award 19 delegates to Obama. This was not innocent. During my attempts at cell

phone diplomacy, the Obama “chair” hung up on me, and refused to talk to the ethical Obama

organizer I was paired with at another precinct convention. As with all major attempts at fraud that

we identified, this delegate count was rectified in private at the county TDP headquarters, according

to TDP rules, but there were no public charges or sanctions. It is my opinion that people should be

in jail, but there is not a mechanism for this sort of prosecution, certainly not within TDP rules.

Although I have only volunteered in one state, virtually every Clinton staffer I have talked to has

similar stories from other caucus states. While the Hillary field campaign operates and feels very

much like typical Democratic campaigns, the Obama campaign is something new to Democratic

politics. From my perspective, it looks like it has copied the worst attributes of Republican

campaigns, but with unprecedented zeal.’172

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 323

GENOCIDAL AUSTERITY FOR THE PLANET AND THE THIRD WORLD

The reality of a future Obama regime as an exercise in brutal austerity and draconian sacrifice

for an already exhausted US population is carefully hidden by the swooning media whores in this

country, but the intent is gross enough to be perceived from far away. Russian commentators, well

aware that Brzezinski runs Obama, have called attention to the Polish revanchist’s demands for a

further lowering of the US standard of living in order to increase the attractiveness of the US social

model to the rest of the world. In short, Brzezinski wants austerity for US blue collar workers and

poor people of all colors in order to enhance the efficacy of his imperialist war plans A smart

Russian author writing under the name of “Maksim Kalashnikov” observes: ‘In his most recent

book, entitled Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower, Mr.

Brzezinski is trying to inspire his nation for a strategic mobilization, using arguments that curiously

recall old Soviet experience. It is more remarkable that speaking of disappointment of the

international audience in the American way of life, Mr. Brzezinski concentrated on the moral aspect

of the US development. To his view, the Americans have sunk into over-consumption, luxury, and

hedonism. As soon as the Americans encountered domestic economic problems, their example

became increasingly unattractive. The author correctly reminds us that the crisis of the Soviet Union

started with the loss of attractiveness of its model. Brzezinski emphasizes that the continuing efforts

to transplant democracy on a different soil degenerate into connivance to weakness of partners, and

multiply to lack of knowledge of relevant societies. Meanwhile, the universal image of an American

is associated with arrogant over-consumption, luxurious entertainment, along with indifference

towards environment and exploitation of natural resources. To make a plausible example,

Brzezinski proposes the audience to imagine a world in which every Chinese or Indian consumes as

much as an ordinary American, even in the conditions of economic recession. “Our standards of

consumption are going to get into a conflict with more and more intolerant egalitarian aspirations”,

warns Brzezinski. Therefore, to his view, the United States has to be “socially attractive” – which

requires broad national accord vis-à-vis one of the major flaws of the American social model.’

(“Maksim Kalashnikov, “Brzezinski Discovered America,” April 3, 2008)

The last wholly-owned Trilateral puppet, Jimmy Carter, was of course thoroughly committed to

as much austerity as the political traffic would bear. But even Carter had moments of conscience

and reticence, scruples, and qualms when confronted with the enormity of the sacrifices the

Trilaterals wanted to bail out their corrupt and bankrupt system. Carter was hampered among other

things by his residual allegiance to Christianity under the Trilateral overlay. But Carter had not been

indoctrinated for very long compared with Obama. Obama’s attraction to the Trilateral financiers is

precisely that he is the son of the Ford Foundation anthropologist Ann Dunham, a woman who

flirted with Marxism and was anti-American for all the wrong reasons, and that he is a disciple of

the Cone-Hopkins-Wright synthetic religion of race hatred. Under his suave and cultured veneer,

Obama is boiling with resentments and hatred against the American working class, at whose hands

he imagines that he has received all manner of slights and humiliations. Obama’s basic tendency if

he ever gets to the White House will be to take advantage of an unparalleled opportunity to flay the

American people alive and leave them nothing but their eyes to weep with in a way that Bush, for

all his malevolence, never dreamed of doing. And while Bush had to hide his own looting of the

American people, Obama will loudly proclaim his own austerity plan, trumpeting it as the essence

of social justice, as the answer to imperialism, colonialism, slavery, racism, and pollution – except

that the proceeds will go into the pockets of David Rockefeller, George Soros, and the other finance

oligarchs who own Obama.

324 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

THE PROCEEDS GO TO ROCKEFELLER, SOROS, RUBIN, ROHATYN

One way that Obama could show that he is better than Bush and better than McCain when it

comes to imposing crushing austerity on the American population is his ability to dress up cuts in

the living standard in the camouflage of leftist and humanitarian verbiage. A fiendish variant of this

demagogy is Obama’s plan to help the third world. In reality, the sums of money cited here will go

to bail out the bankrupt banks and investment houses of Rockefeller, Soros, Rubin, and Rohatyn.

But left liberals will support these measures, especially because they involve further sacrifices for

blue collar workers. Obama’s bill is called the Global Poverty Act, ‘… and could result in the

imposition of a $845 billion global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many

liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the

United Nations. The U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay

0.7 percent of its GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the

U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for

Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the

“Millennium Development Goals,” this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind

of money is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Here’s an abstract of

the proposed legislation: “To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive

strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global

poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the [U.N.] Millennium

Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and

2015, who live on less than $1 per day.” Here’s how Senator Obama’s website frames the bill:

“With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of

the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces,” said Senator Obama. “It

must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and

ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America’s

standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in

the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade

agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small

farmers everywhere.”’ 173 The key to getting the United States and the rest of the world out of the

present Bush economic depression is to gear up American factories for a campaign of exporting

high technology capital goods to the developing countries, especially in the critical areas of

infrastructure and nuclear energy production (Atoms for Peace). That would be a real economic

recovery program. But Obama is talking about nothing of the kind: he is talking about extorting

taxpayer dollars by citing the very real fact that 40,000 people die every day in the developing

countries of malnutrition and starvation, and then cynically giving the money to his bankrupt Wall

Street backers to prop up their rotten and doomed system.

This capability of Obama to impose sacrifice and austerity qualitatively worse than Carter

depends on the fact that the force of hatred is far stronger in Obama, the foundation-funded anti-

American racist and crypto-Weatherman, than it ever was in Carter, who appears benign by

comparison. Even the cynical Spengler is aghast at the hatred of the American people which can be

detected in Obama: ‘“Evil will oft evil mars”, J. R. Tolkien wrote. It is conceivable that Barack

Obama, if elected, will destroy himself before he destroys the country. Hatred is a toxic diet even

for someone with as strong a stomach as Obama. As he recalled in his 1995 autobiography, Dreams

from My Father, Obama idealized the Kenyan economist who had married and dumped his mother,

and was saddened to learn that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, was a sullen, drunken polygamist. The

elder Obama became a senior official of the government of Kenya after earning a PhD at Harvard.

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 325

He was an abusive drunk and philanderer whose temper soured his career.’ (Spengler, Asia Times,

Feb. 26, 2008) Obama also has a powerful demagogic weapon to turn against the American people

as he seeks to ram killer austerity down their throats: this is the global warming hope is, assiduously

cultivated over some two decades by the oligarchical Malthusian profiteer and parasite Al Gore.

The ultimate source for Obama’s future austerity programs is doubtless Prince Charles, the ego

ideal and master of Obama’s backer Gore. Prince Charles comes from the British royal family,

which supported Mussolini in the 1920s and Hitler in the 1930s. After World War II, they turned to

green fascism in the form of extreme Darwinian-Malthusian zero growth, and now to global

warming as the basis for their genocide policy against the third world. As Prince Charles recently

stated: “We will end up seeing more drought and starvation on a grand scale. Weather patterns will

become even more terrifying and there will be less and less rainfall,” he said. “We are asking for

something pretty dreadful unless we really understand the issues now and [the] urgency of them.”

The neofascist Prince claimed that the rainforests, which provide the “air conditioning system for

the entire planet”, releasing water vapour and absorbing carbon, were being lost to poor farmers

desperate to make a living. Charles raved that every year, 20 million hectares of forest – equivalent

to the area of England, Wales and Scotland – were destroyed and called for a “gigantic partnership”

of governments, businesses and consumers to slow it down. This is just the kind of PPP or publicprivate

partnership which represents the preferred expression for the fascist corporate state in the

English-speaking world. “What we have got to do is try to ensure that these forests are more

valuable alive than dead. At the moment, there is more value in them being dead,” Charles

estimated that the cost would be about £15 billion a year towards which he offered to pay nothing,

but rather attempted to con his listeners by defining this as an insurance policy for the whole world.

“That is roughly just under one per cent of all the insurance premiums paid in the world in any one

year. It is an insurance premium to ensure the world has some rainfall and reasonable weather

patterns. It is a good deal.” A good deal for parasites and genocidalists, one might observe. (Andrew

Pierce, “Prince Charles: Eighteen months to stop climate change disaster,” Daily Telegraph, May

18, 2008) Prince Charles is clearly counting on Obama to break the back of the remaining industrial

powers during the first year of his presidential term; this would inevitably be followed by social

chaos and mass starvation.

In an article entitled “Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government,” Daniel

Taylor outlines how the exploitation of the natural phenomenon of “global warming” was a pet

project of the Club of Rome and the CFR. “In a report titled ‘The First Global Revolution’ (1991)

published by the Club of Rome, an oligarchical think tank, we find the following statement: “In

searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global

warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by

human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”174 With Bush, the enemy image

(Feindbild) was concocted on the basis of the 9/11 myth. With Obama, the enemy image is

humanity in general, based on the insane hoax of overpopulation, the limits of growth, and of

carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The essence of fascist economics is the imposition of a statesponsored

compulsory cartel for the purpose of reducing employment and cutting production,

outside of which no economic activity is permitted. Back during the Carter years, the Trilateralists

concluded that the way to impose the fascist corporate state in the United States is to do it under the

cover of ecological and environmentalist explanations. The Al Gore “cap and trade” swindle

predicated on global warming is the chosen means to smuggle the fascist corporate state in through

the back door under the cover of controlling the emissions of so-called greenhouse gases. Cap and

trade represents Gore’s method of creating a new financial bubble after the catastrophic collapse of

326 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

the current worldwide asset bubble. Those who do not join the compulsory cartel by entering the

market for carbon offsets will be shut down by the Green Corps Gestapo.

This approach is now the basis of an emerging pan-oligarchical consensus among the US-UK

financiers. ‘…attendees at the recent Trilateral meeting raised the specter of climate change as a

tool to force through tax hikes. Calling on the United States government to adopt a “carbon

monoxide control policy,” former CIA boss and long term champion of creating a domestic

intelligence agency to spy on Americans John Deutch, argued that America should impose a $1-

pergallon increase in the gasoline tax under the pretext of fighting pollution. During the secretive

Trilateral Commission group meeting in March 2007, elitists gathered to formulate policy on how

best they could exploit global warming fear-mongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how

westerners live their lives. At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission,

Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland, gave a speech to his cohorts in

which he issued a “Universal battle cry arose for the world to address “global warming” with a

single voice.” Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild &

Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged

the Trilateral power-brokers to “Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose

rules that apply worldwide.’175 So far, China, Russia, and India have refused to accept economic

strangulation and the shutdown of their economic development plans by the global warming

charlatans. Instead, 50-60 countries around the world are demanding a rapid shift to nuclear energy,

and the International Atomic Energy Agency has advanced a workable plan for 1,400 new nuclear

reactors to guarantee the future of humanity. One of Obama’s first tasks will be to attempt to

sabotage these efforts in favor of an endless stagnation and neo-colonial underdevelopment. Any

country which accepts the Gore cap and trade insanity is committing moral and economic suicide,

and will not survive. Ever the hypocrite, Obama is oblivious to all this: he has just bought a

Chrysler with a big 5.7-liter engine from them, probably with a sweetheart discount from the

Cerberus hedge fund which is now demolishing Chrysler.

CAMOUFLAGE FOR OBAMA’S SCHACHTIAN ECONOMICS

Obama’s economic handlers, advisers, and controllers were assigned to him from the ranks of

the University of Chicago monetarist school, the home of the infamous hyper-austerity economics

which reached its fullest flowering when the bloody-handed military dictator of Chile Agusto

Pinochet, who had been installed in a violent coup by Kissinger, called in Milton Friedman to

superintend the “liberal reforms” need to crush the working class of Chile, roll back a century of

social and economic gains by the labor movement, and drastically reduce the standard of living in

order to enhance the looting rate enjoyed by US-UK multinational corporations. Naturally, it would

be something of an embarrassment to the Perfect Master if he were exposed as following in the

footsteps of Pinochet and Thatcher in his economic policy, even though it is exactly that which his

controllers intend him to do. One short-term palliative is to pretend that Obama’s top adviser,

Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago free market, free trade, neoliberal looting temple is

not really a full-fledged member of the Chicago School – he is just a fellow who happens to teach at

the University of Chicago. Obviously, this threadbare subterfuge will not be very effective. What is

therefore required is to concoct a more ambitious plan for smokescreen and camouflage, inevitably

in the form of yet another “third way” between authentic FDR New Deal economics (which the

monetarists fear so much that they prefer to apply to it the very misleading label of Keynesianism)

and the Friedman-von Hayek monetarist looting theory. This operation emerged in the late spring of

2008 in the form of the Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions about

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 327

Health, Wealth, and Happiness (New Haven CN: Yale University Press, 2008). As Art Laffer once

remarked, “You want to prove that Milton Friedman is a fascist? It’s easy – quote him.”

DON’T NOODGE ME, BRO’

The cynical gambit here is that Obama represents a third way capable of transcending the New

Deal and monetarist clash, and that this third way is not the same as the deeply flawed third way

that had been embraced by Bill Clinton in 1993 after his lecture from Greenspan on how bad things

really were – a lecture which submerged Clinton’s populist instincts under a toxic tide of Wall

Street pro-globalization ideology. The new buzz word is paternalistic libertarianism, meaning in

practice the Friedmanite anti-state, pro-monopoly, pro-cartel (“pro-market”) vision, but now

seasoned with a heady dose of coercion, which masquerades under the guise of a helpful “nudge.” If

we switch into Yiddish, we can see that both Thaler and Sunstein indeed qualify as full-fledged

nudges or noodges. In good Yiddish, nudzh or noodge works as substantive meaning one who

persistently pesters, annoys, or complains, a transitive verb meaning to annoy persistently or pester,

and even as an intransitive verb meaning to complain or carp persistently. The etymology goes back

to the Yiddish nudyen, to pester, bore, from Polish nudzi.’176 Soon we are likely to hear calls to

Obama saying “Don’t noodge me, bro’” – because of the candidate’s propensity to complain and

blame his failures on the American people.

Obama’s economic policies can be classified as neo-liberal tending towards Schachtian – going

back to Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler’s first Finance Minister, a figure widely recognized by his

contemporaries as the chief German asset of the House of Morgan. What Thaler and Sunstein have

come up with is a not so clever pastiche based on the fake argument that Obama is “a

behavioralist—the term economists use to describe those who subscribe to the tenets of behavioral

economics, an increasingly popular discipline that seeks to marry the insights of psychology to the

rigor of economics.” As soon as we hear the term behaviorism applied to human affairs, it is time to

run for our lives. Behaviorism is the bankrupt, discredited, and sinister complex of crude and cruel

doctrines associated with the names of John B. Watson and B. F. Skinner. Skinner was the inventor

of the Skinner box, a torture chamber into which little white rats were placed so they could receive

alternating electrical shocks and pellets of food and candy in order to shape their behavior according

Skinner’s notion of operant behavior modification. Another example is Pavlov teaching dogs to

salivate when they hear a gong. These methods have long been applied to human affairs, with one

of the most infamous examples being Jeremy Bentham, one of the founders of modern British

intelligence and an architect of the worst Jacobin excesses of the French revolution. Bentham

designed a prison called the Panoptikon in which behaviorist methods were used to maximize the

exploitation of prisoners. Therefore, if you want to get a good image of yourself and your family

under a future Obama regime, imagine yourself in the position of that wretched little white rat in a

Skinner box, working and scampering and scurrying about hectically and desperately to avoid

excruciating electric shocks and to earn a little pellet of food. That is the core idea of behaviorist

economics, once the advertising copy has been stripped away. This is your future under the politics

of hope and change.

As a political matter, Obama’s acolytes are well aware that Clinton evolved well into New Deal

territory during her campaign, and these are the ideas that Obama is assigned to crush: as a recent

review notes, ‘Hillary Clinton, after initially equivocating, has emerged as the would-be heir to

FDR and John Maynard Keynes. In addition to imposing a ninety-day moratorium on foreclosures

and a five-year freeze on certain adjustable mortgage rates, she would have the federal government

buy up an undetermined number of troubled home loans, enabling lenders to convert them to more

328 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

affordable deals and putting a floor under the housing market. Clinton would also allow bankruptcy

judges to reduce the value of mortgages, a proposal the banking industry vigorously opposes, and

she has criticized McCain as the reincarnation of Herbert Hoover….’ (John Cassidy, “Economics:

Which Way for Obama?” New York Review of Books, · June 12, 2008)

Obama is a creature of the catastrophic Great U-Turn under Carter, and of the Reaganite Age of

Monetarist decline which followed, and his handlers are determined to go further in this bankrupt

direction: ‘Should Obama win the nomination, political considerations may well force upon him a

more interventionist position, but his first inclination is to seek a path between big government and

laissez-faire, a trait that reflects his age—he was born in 1961—and the intellectual milieu he

emerged from. Before entering the Illinois state Senate, he spent ten years teaching constitutional

law at the University of Chicago, where respect for the free market is a cherished tradition. His

senior economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is a former colleague of his at Chicago and an expert on

the economics of high-tech industries. Goolsbee is not a member of the “Chicago School” of Milton

Friedman and Gary Becker, but he is not well-known as a critic of American capitalism either. As

recently as March 2007, he published an article in The New York Times pointing out the virtues of

subprime mortgages. “The three decades from 1970 to 2000 witnessed an incredible flowering of

new types of home loans,” Goolsbee wrote. “These innovations mainly served to give people power

to make their own decisions about housing, and they ended up being quite sensible with their

newfound access to capital.”’ Too bad if you die of exposure after undergoing foreclosure,

Goolsbee’s doctrines will not doubt offer a world of solace and comfort.

Among the more recent precedents for behaviorist economics, our reviewer notes these:

‘Although its intellectual roots go back more than thirty years, to the pioneering work of two Israeli

psychologists, Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, behavioral economics took off only about ten

years ago, and many of its leading lights, among them David Laibson and Andrei Shleifer, of

Harvard; Matt Rabin, of Berkeley; and Colin Camerer, of Caltech, are still in their thirties or forties.

One of the reasons this approach has proved so popular is that it appears to provide a center ground

between the Friedmanites and the Keynesians, whose intellectual jousting dominated economics for

most of the twentieth century.’ Now we have a new attempt to put lipstick on the Friedmanite pig.

A central concept of this new school of economic kookery and obscurantism is the concept of the

nudge, a gentle tap from the regime to push the individual into the direction desired by the finance

oligarchs and their political puppets like Obama. Since the goal of the entire exercise is to increase

the looting rate and austerity index at the expense of working families, the nudge will have to

evolve in a more and more coercive direction. It will go from a nudge to a shove to an elbow in the

ribs to a cattle prod to a whip to a truncheon, and then to a bayonet, before turning into a machine

gun. Our reviewer continues: ‘The central tenet of the Chicago School is that markets, once

established and left alone, will resolve most of society’s economic problems, including,

presumably, the mortgage crisis. Keynesians—old-school Keynesians, anyway—take the view that

markets, financial markets especially, often fail to work as advertised, and that this failure can be

self-reinforcing rather than self-correcting. In some ways, the behavioralists stand with the

Keynesians. Markets sometimes go badly awry, they agree, especially when people have to make

complicated choices, such as what type of mortgage to take out. But whereas the Keynesians argue

that vigorous regulation and the prohibition of certain activities such as excessive borrowing are

often necessary, behavioralists tend to be more hopeful about redeeming free enterprise. With a

gentle nudge, they argue, even some very poorly performing markets—and the people who inhabit

them—can be made to work pretty well.’ (John Cassidy, “Economics: Which Way for Obama?”

New York Review of Books, June 12, 2008)

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 329

As if by magic, the Trilateral hand which guides Obama’s fortunes has arranged for a new book

which can serve as a fig leaf for his odious and reactionary economic program: ‘In a fortuitous

accident of timing, Sunstein and his friend Richard Thaler have just published a book that makes the

behavioralist case in non-technical language: Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth,

and Happiness. On the face of it, finding two more suitable coauthors would be difficult. Sunstein is

a one-man think tank and a prolific writer—by my count, this is his eighth book in as many years.

Thaler, who, like Goolsbee, teaches at Chicago’s Graduate School of Business, is one of the

founders of behavioral economics. During the 1980s, he began publishing a series of columns in the

Journal of Economic Perspectives about economic phenomena that defied the accepted wisdom of

the subject, which depended heavily on the twin assumptions of individual rationality and market

efficiency.’ (John Cassidy, “Economics: Which Way for Obama?” New York Review of Books, ·

June 12, 2008)

The entire package has to be dressed up in a libertarian mantle, to add an extra layer of

camouflage protection and to imbue it with crossover appeal to the numerous drifting stragglers

from the Ron Paul campaign who are going to have to go somewhere when their current Pied Piper

of the Austrian School is finally defeated at the Republican Convention: ‘In defense of Thaler and

Sunstein, their emphasis is on public policy. Yet the program they outline seems unduly restrictive.

Not content to be behavioralists, they are also libertarians, and they endorse something they call

“libertarian paternalism.” They write: “Libertarian paternalism is a relatively weak, soft, and nonintrusive

type of paternalism because choices are not blocked, fenced off, or significantly burdened.

If people want to smoke cigarettes, to eat a lot of candy, to choose an unsuitable health care plan, or

to fail to save for retirement, libertarian paternalists will not force them to do otherwise—or even

make things hard for them. Still, the approach we recommend does count as paternalistic, because

private and public choice architects are not merely trying to track or to implement people’s

anticipated choices. Rather, they are self-consciously attempting to move people in directions that

will make their lives better. They nudge.” A nudge, as we will use the term, is any aspect of the

choice architecture that alters people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options

or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention

must be easy and cheap to avoid. Nudges are not mandates. Putting the fruit at eye level counts as a

nudge. Banning junk food does not.’ Alas! It is a slippery slope, especially when the bankers are

calling the shots, as they will be under Obama. The conclusion reached by Thaler and Sunstein is

this: “The twentieth century was pervaded by a great deal of artificial talk about the possibility of a

“Third Way.” We are hopeful that libertarian paternalism offers a real Third Way—one that can

break through some of the least tractable debates in contemporary democracies.”’ (John Cassidy,

“Economics: Which Way for Obama?” New York Review of Books, · June 12, 2008) Rather than a

third way, this is the same old monetarist blind alley in drag – and, under conditions of the Bush

depression, it is a blind alley that leads off a cliff.

YOUTHFUL ENERGY AND LOFTY IDEALS: THE DRAFT AND FORCED LABOR

Obama has issued a “Call to Serve,” announcing his intent to impose some kind of peacetime

national service; in a major policy address at Cornell College in Mt. Vernon, Iowa. Obama said: ‘I

am going to ask you to play your part; ask you to stand up; ask you to put your foot firmly into the

current of history. I am asking you to change history’s course. And if I have the fortune to be your

President, decades from now – when the memory of this or that policy has faded, and when the

words that we will speak in the next few years are long forgotten – I hope you remember this as a

moment when your own story and the American story came together, and history bent once more in

330 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

the direction of justice.” At the event, Senator Obama was introduced and endorsed by former U.S.

Senator Harris Wofford (D-PA), former Associate Director of the Peace Corps and former Special

Assistant to the President for Civil Rights during the Kennedy Administration. Wofford was

instrumental in the formation of the Peace Corps, played a key role in crafting and passing the

legislation that led to the creation of AmeriCorps and Senator, and currently serves as an advisor to

ServeNext.’ Senator Obama’s plan would …would: expand AmeriCorps from its current 75,000

slots to 250,000 slots, enabling the program to establish five new Corps that address some of

America’s most pressing challenges: Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps,

Veterans Corps, and Homeland Security Corps; . engage retiring Americans in service on a large

scale by expanding and improving Senior Corps, VISTA and other programs that connect

individuals over the age of 55 to volunteer opportunities; double the size of the Peace Corps from

7,800 volunteers to 16,000 by its 50th anniversary in 2011 and work to partner volunteers with

people from other nations; establish an America’s Voice Initiative to recruit and train Americans

that are fluent speakers of local languages to bolster our public diplomacy efforts abroad; and create

a national online network, modeled on Craigslist, to connect volunteers to service and donation

opportunities.’177 All of these formations could easily acquire paramilitary overtones, with obvious

implications for postmodern fascist developments. The Homeland Security Corps was an especially

sinister plan that deserved relentless scrutiny and wife exposure.

OBAMA’S FREIWILLIGER ARBEITSDIENST

Not content with this Obama also demanded measures accomplish the following: ‘establish a

goal of having middle and high-schoolers contribute at least 50 hours a week to community service,

and reach that goal through national guidelines for service-learning and additional resources for

schools to develop successful programs; Connect disadvantaged youth to service opportunities and

a pathway to success through the creation of Green Job Corps and the expansion of Youth Build

from 8,000 slots today to 50,000 slots over the next eight years; Create a new American

Opportunity Tax Credit to ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for

Americans willing to complete 100 hours of public service a year; Promote College Serve-Study by

immediately increasing the percentage of Federal Work-Study Program funding that goes to

community service jobs from 7 percent to 25 percent, and helping colleges and universities reach a

goal of 50 percent of serve-study over time; Expand the capacity of the nonprofit sector by

establishing a Social Investment Fund Network to provide R&D capital to encourage innovation,

find out what works, and expand successful programs to scale across the country; Create a Social

Entrepreneurship Agency to enable nonprofits to build capacity through improved collaborations

with government. (“Obama to Issue Call to Serve, Vow to Make National Service Important Cause

of His Presidency,” World socialist web site, December 5th, 2007) In his speech on national service

on July 2, 2008 at the University of Colorado, Obama promised that as president he would “set a

goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for

all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year.” Underneath the edifying service

verbiage was the clear intent to prepare a form of compulsory service for the benefit of the bankrupt

Wall Street financiers, which might then kick over into outright forced labor through the use of food

control and other expedients as the depression worsened. Obama’s youthful dupes do not know it,

but there is a future of involuntary servitude waiting for them, be it armed with a rifle or a shovel.

Here, their fervent idealism would be ground into powder in the service of Wall Street greed.

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 331

THE MOST SCURRILOUS CANDIDATE EVER: OBAMA’S SEXUAL INNUENDO

From a CNN report we learn: Barack Obama appeared to have a bit of an awkward ‘moment on

the campaign trail in South Bend, Indiana. From the pool report: “[Obama] posed for report pictures

with the staff when he apparently felt his phone start to vibrate in his pocket on his right thigh –

against which one woman was closely pressed. Later, as two cafe waitresses and owner Brenda

Wilson squeezed next to him for a photograph, Obama suddenly turned to one woman. “That’s my

phone buzzing there,” he said. “I don’t want you to think I’m getting fresh or anything.”’ (CNN,

April 10, 2008) On May 8, 2008, CNN aired a segment which was later posted with the caption/title

“Obama in Jeans.” This segment showed Obama lounging in blue jeans in the front of his campaign

plane while talking on his cell phone. Readers are invited to judge for themselves whether the

comments appended to this photo are correct. Obama clearly has a very scurrilous idea of

presidential decorum. Was Obama attempting to prove that he did not share an anatomical

deficiency widely attributed to Hitler? An Obama White House would rival the court of Nero or,

better yet, Heliogabalus, for its sexual depravity and licentiousness.178

“HOLD ON A SECOND, SWEETIE” — OBAMA’S INCURABLE MISOGYNY

Obama’s contempt for women is constantly expressed. Another example was his dismissal of a

serious policy question about jobs in the auto industry from a woman reporter working for a major

Detroit television station while the Perfect Master was mugging his way through an automobile

plant. ‘The moment came at a campaign stop in Detroit, when Peggy Agar, a reporter at ABC’s

Detroit affiliate WXYZ-TV, asked Obama this question: “Senator, how are you going to help the

American autoworkers?” “Hold on a second, sweetie. We’ll hold a press avail,” replied Obama,

referring to a structured question and answer session with the media. Hours later, Obama left Agar a

voicemail, apologizing for not answering her question and for calling her “sweetie.” “That’s a bad

habit of mine,” Obama said in the message. “I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no

disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front.” It apparently is a habit. In an earlier campaign

stop, Obama said to a woman, “Sweetie, if I start with a picture I will never get out of here.” And

then: “Sweetie if I start doing autographs I just won’t be … I am really late.” (Dan Harris,

“Obama’s ‘Sweetie’: Spontaneous or Sexist?” ABC News, May 16, 2008)

Obama’s patronizing, condescending approach was also in evidence during a visit to Tama

Manufacturing near Allentown, Pennsylvania, where he flirted with and flattered women who make

less than poverty wages. According to Huffington Post: ‘Obama lavished compliments on

dancewear manufacturer Marisa Cerveris, who gave him a black and pink leotard for [Obama’s

daughters] Malia and Sasha, explaining she was once in the New York City ballet. “You look like

you might be a dancer,” Obama told her, later adding: “You’re big time.” “You’re gorgeous,” he

told Cerveris after glancing at one of her old ballet photos. “I was,” she replied. “You still are,” he

countered, asking the crowd, “Isn’t she beautiful?” and answering his own question: “Absolutely.”

The average unionized worker at Tama makes about $18,000 a year, lower than poverty level wages

for a family of four according to government standards. Tama workers make $10.50 an hour, and

must contribute $50 a month toward their health care. Obama praised Tama Manufacturing as a

success story saying, “I’m glad to see we still have a good company here with a good owner looking

after his workers.” Recently, these same workers had gone on strike for 15 weeks.

332 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

OBAMA FEARS ISSUES OF HOMOSEXUALITY AND BISEXUALITY

Questions of homosexuality and bisexuality, as already noted, are obviously fraught with a great

deal of attention and peril in Obama’s case. In late October 2007, Obama became embroiled in a

controversy because he accepted the support of Donnie McClurkin, the superstar black gospel

singer, who is a former homosexual who argues the thesis that homosexuality is a choice, a view

which many homosexuals regard as heresy. McClurkin appeared together with Obama at a gospel

concert in Columbia, South Carolina. ‘“Don’t call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the

same feelings,” said McClurkin. “God delivered me from homosexuality,” he added. He then told

the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: “God is the only way.” Obama was forced to

backpedal furiously, issuing a statement saying that he strongly disagrees with Mr. McClurkin’s

views and that he has tried to address what he called the homophobia among some black voters. As

a result, some of Obama’s events were picketed in protest by small groups of gay and lesbian

militants.’ (Katharine Q. Seelye, Obama’s Gospel Concert Tour, New York Times, October 29,

2007)

Later, before the Pennsylvania primary, Obama was damaged by a public dispute with the

leading gay publication in Philadelphia because he refused to grant an interview, something that

many black press organs have also complained about. The Philadelphia Gay News attacked Obama

for his consistent refusal to speak to gay media outlets. In a pre-election issue, the paper featured a

front-page interview with Hillary Clinton and a large blank space under a photo of Barack Obama,

with a banner headline reading, “Clinton Talks, Obama Balks.” The paper’s accompanying editorial

commented: “At this point in the Democratic presidential campaign, we’re able to view the

candidates by their actions. And we have found that Sen. Barack Obama would rather talk at the

LGBT community than with them....” (Queerty) All of this left the question of why Obama seemed

so blocked and uncomfortable when it came to interacting with media which represent a

considerable number of Democratic primary voters. Based on the Larry Sinclair revelations and the

Reverend Manning “Trinity of Hell” tape, Obama may be concerned that he will be outed as a

closet homosexual or bisexual.

The important Pennsylvania primary was held on April 22. It had been preceded by 6 weeks of

intensive campaigning, and had allowed Obama to bring to bear the full range of advantages

inherent in his well-heeled Soros-powered pluto-candidacy. Obama outspent Clinton by margins

that were variously estimated as two to one, three to one, or four to one (Pat Buchanan on MSNBC),

with much of this concentrated in the area of television advertising. Obama’s television advertising

blitz probably crossed into the area of diminishing returns and of active annoyance and backlash

against his condescending and hectoring tone. Obama was defeated by 10 percentage points, 55 to

45. It was a humiliating and ominous defeat. The postmodern fascist had broken his sword against

the Clinton lines.

OBAMA GIVES HILLARY THE FINGER

In a campaign appearance the next day, Obama manifestly engaged in an obscene gesture – the

digitus infamis – directed personally against Mrs. Clinton. He also brushed off his shoulders to

show his contempt for Clinton’s criticisms. Among the media, the most explicit discussion was

provided by O’Reilly on the evening of April 21, 2008, although there had been some previous

light-headed badinage on MSNBC. Laluchasigue of noquarterusa.net called attention to the fact that

Obama was using coded references to communicate a racist message to his followers in a way that

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 333

many other voters would not understand. Laluchasigue pointed out that the key to interpreting

Obama’s antics over these days were the following lyrics:

‘[Chorus: Jay-Z]

If you feelin’ like a pimp n***a, go and brush your shoulders off

Ladies is pimps too, go and brush your shoulders off

N****z is crazy baby, don’t forget that boy told you

Get, that, dirt off your shoulder.

Laluchasigue went on to elaborate his thesis: ‘Now, get this Obamabot’s reaction to the gesture:

“Dude, I nearly swooned — SWOONED, I tell you — when I saw that. That’s one of my fave Jay-

Z joints of all time. HUGE SWIRLING VORTEX OF LOVE. I could not pink-fuzzy-heart Barack

one iota more.” Violet Socks posted a diary about that “swooner” over at the terrific new

blog…Laluchasigue continued: ‘Obama’s gesture prompted a mash-up video that made the Jay-

Z/Obama connection explicit. Ari Melber, the other Obamabot named Ari at The Nation, posted the

video on The Nation’s website, noting, “Obama really is a Jay-Z fan, too. When asked which hip

hop artists he likes in a recent interview, he said, ‘lately I’ve been listening to a lot of Jay-Z — this

new American Gangster album.’” Spencer Ackerman, another young white male media Obamaton,

called Obama’s gesture “perhaps the coolest subliminal cultural reference in the history of

American politics.” So what is the hype about? What did Jay-Z actually say that captivated Barack

Obama? Here is the hook and first verse to the new theme song of Obama ‘08:

[Chorus: Jay-Z]

If you feelin’ like a pimp n***a, go and brush your shoulders off

Ladies is pimps too, go and brush your shoulders off

N****z is crazy baby, don’t forget that boy told you

Get, that, dirt off your shoulder

[Verse One]

I probably owe it to y’all, probably to be locked by the force

Tryin to hustle some things, that go with the Porsche

Feelin no remorse, feelin like my hand was forced

Middle finger to the law, n***a grippin ma balls

Stab the ladies they love me, from the bleachers they screamin

All the ballers is bouncin, they like the way I be leanin

All the rappers be hatin, off the track that I’m makin

But all the hustlers they love it just to see one of us make it

Came from the bottom the bottom, to the Top of the Pops

N***a London, Japan and I’m straight off the block

Like a running back, get it man, I’m straight off the block

I can run it back n***a cause I’m straight with the Roc.’

Laluchasigue continued: ‘Obama hasn’t flipped a “middle finga to the law” but to Hillary instead

(his godfather Tony Rezko and possible financial angel Nadmi Auchi were the ones flicking off the

law). He got his clock cleaned in a debate about his closest associates, his domestic policy proposals

and national security credentials, but after a quick, not-so-subliminal reference to Jay-Hova,

Obama’s back to “feelin’ like a pimp.” (Laluchasigue, ‘Obama Invokes Jay-Z “Stab the

Ladies…Middle Finga To The Law”, noquarterus.net, April 18, 2008)

334 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

The decadent forces of radical chic like Mo Dowd were also fully aware of the scurrilous and

obscene references that were built into Obama’s contemptible posturing: ‘It had to be the first time

in history that a presidential candidate had a hip-hop moment. Barack Obama, who says he listens

to Jay-Z along with his “old school guy” favorites like Earth, Wind & Fire and the Temptations,

alluded to the rapper’s 2003 hit “Dirt Off Your Shoulder” on Thursday to sweep away concerns

about his pugnacity. After conceding that the Philly debate was tough, he brushed the imaginary lint

of Hillary, George and Charlie from his shoulders, in a wordless reference to Jay-Z’s lyrics in his

anthem about not letting anyone crimp your ride as you cruise from the bottom to the top: “Got

some, dirt on my shoulder, could you brush it off for me.”’ (Maureen Dowd, “Brush It Off,” New

York Times, April 20, 2008) These decadent circles knew what they were getting. And they liked it.

With Obama, the institution of the presidency was destined to sink into a sewer of degradation

comparable to the era of the British Hellfire Clubs or the more depraved Roman emperors.

OBAMA STONEWALLS THE MEDIA

The clouds gathered ever more densely over Obama’s head. Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers,

Bittergate – small wonder that he stopped taking questions from his own traveling press corps, who

had generally been exemplary in their docility. In Blue Bell, Pennsylvania on April 21, ‘reporters

and photographers slightly trampled a Sept. 11 memorial garden to get into position to photograph

Obama after the event, and to try to ask him a few questions. Obama has not taken questions from

reporters traveling with him for 10 days. He gave his supporters some advice about the cameras at

the start of his event. “Just ignore them,” he said. “Pretend they’re not there.”’ (John McCormick,

“Mellow, Outdoor Afternoon with Obama,” Chicago Tribune, The Swamp, April 21, 2008) A

photograph turned up in which the Perfect Master was depicted making the classic coarse gesture

not to Sen. Clinton, but to the traveling press corps: The caption read: ‘Here’s your Barack Obama,

all alone on this giant luxury jet plane, reading his newspapers and perhaps flipping the bird to

Hillary, the airplane, and especially the political journalists who are again pretending that Hillary

Clinton can “win” the nomination, when she doesn’t have enough votes or delegates to actually do

that. Also, taped to the cabin ceiling ... a blood-stained towel?’ [AP Photo] (Wonkette, April 23,

2008)

ELITISM AND OLIGARCHICAL THINKING: OBAMA’S ACHILLES HEEL

The main objection to Obama remained that he was an elitist, an oligarch by training and

ideology, and also in terms of the narrow interests he proposed to serve. This was especially evident

in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana, and later in West Virginia and Kentucky. A

Pennsylvania critic observed: “Obama is black by heritage but also a product of liberal elitism,

which appears to drive his thinking: Poor kid from single-parent home gets access to the best

schools, the best opportunities, and is groomed for greatness…. his thinking hovers on liberal elite.

That is why his comment in San Francisco about embittered Middle America was so revealing

about whom and what he is. Yet because of race, his political veneer was not scratched. In ideology,

is he different from Mike Dukakis, John Kerry, Al Gore or George McGovern? Probably not. He

just looks really cool saying the kind of things once said by those four men who lost the presidency

for the Democrats. And why did they lose? In large part, because of a lack of connection with

bread-and-butter Democrats. Love him or hate him, give Bill Clinton his due: He fought for the

presidency against all odds, from a small white Southern town; when he won, he delivered without

ever embracing liberal elitism. That is part of the price Hillary Clinton is paying in this primary:

The party’s liberal-elite side resents Bill’s performance… Compare this with two modern presidents

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 335

who are widely remembered and admired: William Jefferson Clinton and Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Neither came from or had access to the elite system, though at times they brushed against it; when

push came to shove, they rejected it for their own survival. Both deeply wanted people to like them

because of their upbringings — both came from poor families in small-town America with abusive,

alcoholic fathers….If the candidate who emerges from this primary season echoes the liberal elitism

of McGovern, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry, then Democrats should start bracing for a losing year, one

they should have easily won.” (Salena Zito, “Elite Democrats Lose,Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,

April 20, 2008)

OBAMA AS ADULATION ADDICT

As one British journalist noted, ‘Obama personally was an adulation addict: he needed the

adoration of the mob as his emotional fuel: In the last, say, three weeks, Obama hasn’t put forward a

single new proposal. He hasn’t, at least on any evidence that I’ve seen, tweaked his stump speech

much. He’s been static and stale and … he hasn’t been looking like he’s having fun doing this. That

can be deadly, and voters can smell it. A campaign can’t be static. It has to sense new dynamics and

paradigms as they arise and roll with them. While it shouldn’t depart from its basic message, it

should undertake little reinventions of the candidate along the way to show that the candidate is on

top of what’s going on out there.’ (Michael Tomasky, London Guardian, April 25, 2008) The

addiction to mob adulation is historically one of the most ominous possible symptoms for the

survival of a democracy. In this regard, Obama was on cold turkey for most of the second half of

the primary season, a fact which underscored his weakness as a candidate: ‘After the end of

February, it was a very long time before Obama WON any victories in primary elections. In the

interim, the Bill Ayers case and a second round of the Jeremiah Wright scandal exploded into public

view, thoroughly discrediting the Trilateral candidate. Obama had now settled into a familiar

pattern: he was able to win the votes of affluent suburbanites, feckless college students, and the

black community. He had very little appeal to white voters in general, trade union households,

women, retirees, Catholic voters, Jewish voters, Asian voters, Hispanic voters, and to that group of

swing voters known as the Reagan Democrats. The only question that remained was whether

Obama’s losing coalition would look more on the Electoral College map like McGovern in 1972,

Carter in 1980, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Gore in 2000, or Kerry in 2004. There was little

doubt that Obama was a sure loser in any normal election. Obama’s gamble was obviously enough

that his friends in the Department of Justice and the FBI would be able to deliver scandals powerful

enough to destroy Senator McCain at some opportune time in the fall. In the meantime, the attitude

of the hacks and elitists at the Democratic National Committee was a mystery to many: why did

they insist on nominating Obama, when he was so obviously a pathetically weak candidate with no

hope of winning the presidency in a contested election? Superficial observers said that this was

because the party insiders really were multicultural and politically correct, and that they therefore

did not want to offend the black community by rejecting its once-in-a-lifetime champion. More

seasoned commentators knew very well that the Democratic National Committee did not give a

damn about the black community one way or the other, and that the hysterical support for Obama

was simply due to the fact that he was the candidate demanded by the Wall Street financial

oligarchs for purposes of saving the entire Anglo American imperialist system. This was the real

reason, and not any concern about black sensibilities.

336 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

CALIFORNIA AND MASSACHUSETTS VULNERABLE TO GOP WITH OBAMA?

As the primaries rolled on, it became painfully obvious that even traditional Democratic states

could easily fall to the Republicans if Obama were in fact the candidate. The shocking list of states

where this condition obtained included such bulwarks as California, and such swing states as

Florida. Even Massachusetts, one of the most reliable Democratic of all the states, turned into a

battleground in case of an Obama nomination, presumably due to widespread voter disaffection

with the failed governor Deval Patrick, who notoriously spouted the same messianic-utopian

rhetoric which was Obama’s stock in trade. Massachusetts voters were saying in effect that one

Trilateral stooge in a generation was all that they could stomach. The veteran electoral analyst

Michael Barone summed up Obama’s plight in a commentary issued at the end of April: “…Clinton

seems to run stronger than Obama in the industrial (or formerly industrial) belt, running west from

New Jersey through Pennsylvania and Ohio to Michigan and Missouri. Obama’s weakness among

white working-class voters in the primaries here suggests he is poorly positioned to win votes he

will need to carry these states in November. This is not a minor problem — we’re talking about 84

electoral votes. Obama has also fared poorly among Latino and Jewish voters in every primary held

so far. This is of consequence most notably in Florida, which has 27 electoral votes. In 2000, Al

Gore won 67 percent of the vote in Broward County and 62 percent in Palm Beach County — both

have large Jewish populations. In this year’s Florida primary, Obama lost those counties to Clinton

by 57 percent to 33 percent and 61 percent to 27 percent. No Democrat can carry Florida without

big margins in Broward and Palm Beach. Obama’s weakness among Latinos and Jews could

conceivably put California’s 55 electoral votes in play. Los Angeles County delivered an 831,000

vote plurality for John Kerry in 2004. Most of that plurality came from areas with large numbers of

Latinos and Jews…. And his discomfort, evident in the Pennsylvania debate, when he is greeted

with anything but adulation does not augur well for his ability to stand firm and show a sense of

command in the face of the stringent criticism he is bound to receive as the Democratic nominee.

(Michael Barone, “Popular Vote Gives Clinton an Edge,” realclearpolitics.com, April 26, 2008)

THE RUBE GOLDBERG-BYZANTINE NIGHTMARE OF THE MCGOVERNFRASER-

DUKAKIS-JACKSON RULES

To understand the rules of the Democratic Party for choosing delegates, you need to imagine the

cartoonist Rube Goldberg transported into the flowing robes of a Byzantine Emperor of the tenth

century. It would take such a strange hybrid to come up with the present procedures for delegate

selection, which have become one of the main reasons why the Democratic candidate almost always

loses. Governor Ed Rendell told the discredited Chris Matthews on April 22 that the Democratic

Party delegate rules were “screwed up,” and that a straight tabulation of the popular vote would be

the most democratic criterion for winning. What then were these delegate selection rules upon

which Obama was relying as he sought to game the system? According to one attempted

explanation, “For its first 150 years, the Democratic Party selected its presidential nominee in a

proverbial smoke-filled room, with delegates picked by party bosses. The system began to change

in the 1940s and 1950s, when a handful of states including New Hampshire established primaries to

give voters a say in the selection of delegates.” As a result of the 1968 defeat, a reform commission

was set up under the leadership of George McGovern and UAW leader Douglas Fraser. In 1968,

Vice President Hubert Humphrey had won the Democratic nomination over the elitist antiwar

candidate Eugene McCarthy without winning any primaries. The next year, party leaders named

Senator George McGovern of South Dakota to head a panel to overhaul the delegate selection

process. The McGovern reforms, by abolishing the tradition of giving party leaders seats at the

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 337

convention, sharply reduced the number of senators and congressmen who served as delegates.

These officeholders were less inclined to support the party’s standard-bearer when they had played

no role in the convention. There were also far fewer trade union leaders as delegates, with

correspondingly more environmentalists, sexual orientation activists, and minority militants. The

Daley machine of Illinois had simply ignored the McGovern recommendations. A floor fight over

the seating of the Illinois delegation ensued, with Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago clashing with

Jesse Jackson, leader of the reform slate. Daley was ousted and Jackson was seated. McGovern then

used the new system he had helped to design in order to seize the 1972 nomination, resulting in his

catastrophic defeat. McGovern won Massachusetts and the District of Columbia in one of the

biggest defeats in US history. Between 1972 and 1988 there were a series of commissions that were

supposed to reform the rules; a 1973 commission chaired by City Councilor Barbara Mikulski of

Baltimore scaled back some of the affirmative action provisions in McGovern’s rules and explicitly

prohibited winner-take-all primaries. Another commission in 1978 turned down the idea of

superdelegates. In June 1988, representatives of Dukakis and Jesse Jackson reworked the rules for

picking a Democratic Party nominee, creating an elaborate framework for selecting delegates based

on proportion of votes in states and congressional districts, with an additional role played by party

elders in the form of superdelegates. By 1980, the proportion of Democratic senators who served as

delegates had declined to 14 percent, down from 68 percent in 1960. Elected officials were unhappy

because they were obliged to run against their own voters and constituents for seats at the

convention. Therefore, there was support for the introduction of superdelegates, meaning party

veterans and elected officials. The one legitimate purpose served by this innovation was to have

some experienced people on the floor of the convention who could say no to a new hysteria of the

type that had propelled the obviously doomed George McGovern to the nomination in 1972. But

Obama and Axelrod had seen that the entire mechanism by 2008 was ripe for the most cynical

gaming. The Electoral College had been designed to give one candidate a convincing and

significant majority of the electoral votes, by ruling out proportional representation and instituting a

winner take all system.

The modern Democratic Party system, motivated by politically correct and multicultural

postmodern criteria did just the opposite: it tended to prevent the emergence of a winner based on

the Electoral College mega states fairly early in the game. The Democratic party rules were

therefore completely dysfunctional, and they had become a major factor in the breakdown of the

entire US political system during the year 2008. These rules were a insane, and the fact was widely

recognized. “This is the nightmare” that all the commissions sought to avoid, said consultant Bill

Carrick, who was part of the 1982 reform panel, in 2008. It was bad enough that the nomination was

in the hands of the party’s 795 “superdelegates,” who constitute party insiders. Even worse was the

fact that these superdelegates seemed to lack the elementary instinct for survival that would have

impelled them to give Clinton the nomination based on her superior ability to win the White House.

Again, obedience to Wall Street, and not any notion of solidarity with the black community, was the

main factor involved. In 1980, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts ran against President

Jimmy Carter in the primaries. Kennedy organized a series of rules challenges against Carter at that

year’s chaotic convention in New York City, triggering another bout of Democratic soul-searching.

“There was a palpable sense that this rules fight was really taking the party down,” said the party

hack Elaine Kamarck, a Carter backer in 1980. “People felt, if only there had been more elected

officials on the floor of the convention, maybe they could have short-circuited this.” There was

much dithering, leading to the creation of another commission chaired by James Hunt, the governor

of North Carolina, which recommended rolling back some of the more extravagant “reforms.” But it

was the Hunt commission that made Democratic members of Congress into automatic delegates, the

338 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

superdelegates of today. In 1984, Jesse Jackson complained that the rules had been stacked against

him by organized labor and Democrats aligned with Kennedy and former vice president Walter

Mondale. In the 1988 election, Jackson claimed that in Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey, and other

states that awarded delegates on a winner-take-all basis within each congressional district, he had

been robbed of his share of the delegates. “We raised hell about the unfairness of the system that

was in play,” said Steve Cobble, Jackson’s delegate director. The rotten compromise of 1988,

extorted by Jackson without regard to the viability of future nominees, mandated proportional

representation as the only method for states to apportion their delegates. When the Hunt

Commission created the superdelegates in 1982, they constituted about 15 percent of all delegates;

since then, they have grown to include some big city mayors, former DNC chairmen, plus former

Democratic presidents and vice presidents. Superdelegates now number 795 and constitute 20

percent of the total. The McGovern reforms “have been watered down significantly by this superdelegate

stuff,” said one Democratic official. “Any time you have that number of delegates that are

not elected by the people, it’s wrong. It’s just wrong.” The obvious problem is that, under the

proportional representation rule imposed in 1988, it becomes mathematically difficult for a winner

to emerge from the primaries. “The unintended consequence has been to make it harder to get a

consensus as to who the nominee should be,” said another official, who supports a return to some

winner-take-all primaries to hasten the process. “The same people who complain about Electoral

College strong-arming can’t very well have a de facto Electoral College,” Jackson said. “That

would be suicidal.” (Alan Wirzbicki, “Changes have left uncertainty: ‘80s rules reform skews

Democrats’ nominee process,” Boston Globe, February 17, 2008)

The Democratic party rules to delegate selection are currently in blatant contradiction to the

rules of the November election. In the Democratic primaries, there is proportional representation;

in the Electoral College it is winner take all with a few minor exceptions. In the November

election, everything is decided by voting through secret ballot; in the Democratic Party, there are

caucuses where loudmouth Malthusian elitists and affluent suburban ideologues can intimidate

blue-collar working people, elderly women, and other core constituencies, sometimes browbeating

them into supporting candidates they do not want, and are sure not to vote for in November. There

are many reports of abuses by the Obamakins in this direction. In Texas this year, Mrs. Clinton

won the popular vote convincingly, but still ended up with fewer delegates because the Obama

lemming legions were able and willing to stay through the lengthy evening caucuses, thus giving

Obama more delegates — surely a scandal for the Democratic Party. . In the Electoral College, the

number of votes each state has is in rough proportion to its population, although smaller states fare

slightly better because they start off with a minimum of three electoral votes. In the Democratic

Party, by contrast, small states and states that are likely to go Republican get a special bonus of

delegates compared to vital, indispensable Democratic states like Michigan, Ohio, and

Pennsylvania. Finally, in the Electoral College it is more or less one-person one-vote; not so in the

Democratic Party, where the Jesse Jackson reforms make sure that an inner-city black vote is worth

much more in terms of electing delegates than a white, blue-collar, rural vote.

THE DEMOCRATIC RULES: “CRAZY”

The inherent absurdity of this entire system for a political party whose announced goal was not

to follow orders from Wall Street, nor to celebrate the ethereal virtues of multiculturalism and

political correctness, but was rather supposed to have to do with winning elections, was pointed out

by Steve and Cokie Roberts, a team of seasoned observers of the Washington scene. They correctly

noted: “Yes, the Clinton camp made strategic blunders that allowed Obama to score heavily in

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 339

Republican states where few Democrats vote. But the real culprit is the party’s stupid, selfdestructive

nominating system, which has two major flaws. Since Feb. 19, seven states have voted.

Clinton has won four — Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island —building up a popular-vote

margin of 483,000. Yet her total gain in delegates was exactly five. In Texas, she won by more than

100,000 votes, but because of that state’s ridiculous rules, she actually came out five delegates

behind. How can that outcome possibly be fair? How can it possibly benefit the party? Wait, it gets

worse. Obama built up sizable margins in small states that Clinton was foolish enough to concede.

His delegate advantage in Idaho, Kansas and Louisiana — three states that will never vote

Democratic — was a total of 38. By contrast, Clinton handily won three large swing states —

Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio. And yet, because of party rules, her combined marginal gain

amounted to 28 delegates. How can it make sense for Idaho, Kansas and Louisiana to have a bigger

impact on choosing the Democratic nominee than Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio? Add in the

exclusion of Florida and Michigan, two crucial states that favor Clinton, and there’s only one word

for the Democrats’ system: crazy. And Republicans are gleeful.” (Cokie and Steve Roberts:

“Democrats will have to overcome their own system,” May 6, 2008) Only by junking these rules

could the Democrats hope to make a permanent comeback in the party realignment process.

OBAMA AS A BURDEN FOR CANDIDATES DOWN THE TICKET

The North Carolina Republican Party released a television ad attacking Beth Perdue and Richard

Moore, two Democratic gubernatorial candidates in that state, because they had both endorsed

Obama, who was now labeled as “too extreme for North Carolina” with documentation featuring

the Wright “God damn America” rant. It was an ominous sign to Democratic superdelegates that

running on the same ticket with the now-tarnished Perfect Master might be highly detrimental to

their chances of winning an election. As a result of Obama’s reckless reliance on his left CIA, left

wing intelligence community network from Chicago, it was now evident that Democratic Party

candidates at all levels would go into the November election carrying an immense burden of public

opprobrium, suspicion, and resentment. The components of this burden had names: they were

Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, the rest of Obama’s gaggle of Weatherman

terrorist cronies, Antoin Rezko, Auchi, Richard Daley, Rod Blagojevich, and many more. The

burden included Obama’ s Bittergate slurs against the lifestyle of blue-collar working class voters,

the hissing venom of Michelle Obama’s self-centered and self-righteous fascistoid tirades, plus a

whole series of gaffes in which Obama appeared to be babbling in delirium as soon as he was

separated from his beloved Teleprompter and had to speak off the cuff. Even more ominous was

the fact that the Obama burden was likely soon to include that Michelle Obama “hate Whitey” tape,

which was reportedly being used by Karl Rove in private screenings to extract substantial

contributions from Republican moneybags and fatcats for Rove’s 527 groups. Most critical of all, it

was the scandal complex that centered around the names of Donald Young and Larry Sinclair which

had the obvious potentiality to bring Obama down even more rapidly than New York Governor

Eliot Spitzer had been destroyed.

More eloquent than any polls in mid-summer 2008 was the growing list of Democratic Party

elected officials who had taken the unusual step of openly and publicly telling Obama that they

were not interested in the vice presidency. The first was Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, who

presided over the classic battleground state which had decided the 2004 election. Then there was

Mark Warner of Virginia, a popular former governor who could have given Obama some faint hope

of taking Virginia out of the GOP column. Warner wanted to keep running for senator. Another

categorical denial came in from Marine General James Jones, the former NATO commander, who

340 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

would have given Obama a shred of military credibility. Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, who

had an impressive machine, said that he was no good at being second banana and therefore would

have to beg off the veep spot. Then came Senator James Webb of Virginia, a strange militarist

ideologue who was wrapped up in his pugnacious Scots-Irish identity trip, and also had a soft spot

for the Confederate States of America. Senator Jack Reid of Rhode Island also opted out. Even

former Senator Bill Bradley made a public statement rejecting a run for veep. All of these open

rejections were very ominous indeed, since each was a powerful vote of no confidence in the

viability of the Messiah at the polls.179

THE NORTH CAROLINA DEBATE THAT NEVER WAS

AND OBAMA’S WIMP FACTOR

A Democratic presidential debate had been scheduled for North Carolina, this time moderated by

Katie Couric of CBS. The Perfect Master had gone into contortions to avoid a format in which he

was now – after his Philadelphia debacle — manifestly a failure, to say nothing of his fear of new

questions about his hate-mongering and terrorist personal associations. Lanny Davis suspected that

DNC chair Howard Dean had connived with the Obamakins to get the North Carolina Democratic

Party to call off the debate, which had become a serious embarrassment to Obama and Axelrod.

Davis demanded that, if Howard Dean had indeed intervened to get Obama off the debate hook, he

should resign his chairmanship on the grounds that he had violated the neutrality and impartiality to

which the DNC leader is formally pledged. If Obama and Axelrod did not in fact fear a debate, they

could easily prove it by offering to show up. How could Obama continue as a viable candidate if he

were afraid of his opponents? Would he run from McCain as well? How could such a political

coward command voter support? Larry Johnson obtained an internal document of the North

Carolina Democratic Party which attempted to motivate the cancellation of the debate by arguing

that “While there was great interest in the debate, there were also growing concerns about what

another debate would do to party unity…” Larry Johnson then offered an “Uppity Translation:

There are growing concerns that any more hard or revealing questions might not be so good for

Baby Jesus Obama.” (Noquarterusa.net, April 23, 2008) By May, Obama had virtually stopped

campaigning. He skipped West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico, which had very different

demographics, but in which Clinton beat Obama 2:1 each time. Clinton even won South Dakota;

Obama could only manage Oregon and Montana.

HO HO AND THE WAR HO

In 2000 and 2004, Democratic activists had demanded that every vote be counted. Now Obama

and his friend Ho Ho (as Howard Dean was known in Vermont), both defenders of the politically

correct-elitist-neomalthusian status quo that had caused so many defeats, were demanding that

Florida and Michigan, two indispensable megastates, not be counted. For any professional pol who

wanted to win an election, it was sheer madness. But many careers and reputations had come to

depend on the Democratic Party as a multicultural, politically correct crazy quilt of racial identity

groups, and sexual preference lobbies, with elitist, radical environmentalist, anti-working class, and

neo-Luddite components generally retaining the upper hand. This chaotic congeries, of course,

corresponded to the multiple fault lines along which the Ford Foundation, its satellite foundations,

and its domestic counterinsurgency apparatus (which had produced Obama) sought to split, divide,

slice, and dice the old FDR New Deal Coalition so it could not threaten Wall Street again. It

mattered not to Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and so many others that the politically correctmulticultural

rainbow coalition model for the party was an incurable, incorrigible loser. The

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 341

rainbow model had led to the rout of the union movement, the collapse of living standards over four

decades, and to the impotence and isolation of the party. But the Pelosi faction had lashed

themselves to the carcass of multiculturalism, and they would rather lose an infinity of presidential

elections rather than lose their personal status and power, no matter what the terrible consequences

to the American people.

OBAMA AS THE NEW MCGOVERN:

EGGHEADS AND BLACKS ARE NOT ENOUGH

After Obama’s staggering defeats in Ohio and Pennsylvania, even some of the more clear-eyed

acolytes of his campaign began to fear for the result in November. What caught their eye was the

eerie resemblance between the outlines of Obama’s coalition as he became weaker and weaker in

April and May, and the 1972 McGovern voter base. That distant debacle was clearly in danger of

being repeated if Obama got the nomination. John Judis had co-authored a book about what he saw

on as the emerging Democratic majority, but Judis was now alarmed. He wrote an article which

caused a furor among the more faithful Kool-Aid addicts at The Nation, who began directing their

vituperation and infective against their hapless left liberal colleague. Judis found that ‘…Obama’s

weaknesses as a general election candidate grow more apparent with each successive primary. I

visited Pennsylvania during this time, and could feel the growing disillusionment with Obama. …

Obama cut into Clinton’s advantage, but couldn’t erase it. Even though he campaigned extensively

among white working class Pennsylvanians, he still couldn’t crack this constituency. He lost every

white working class county in the state. He lost greater Pittsburgh area by 61 to 39 percent. He did

poorly among Catholics – losing them 71 to 29 percent. A Democrat can’t win Pennsylvania in the

fall without these voters. And those who didn’t vote in the primary but will vote in the general

election are likely to be even less amenable to Obama. But Obama also lost ground among the

upscale white professionals that had helped him win states like Wisconsin, Maryland, and Virginia.

For instance, Obama won my own Montgomery County, Maryland by 55 to 43 percent but he lost

suburban Philadelphia’s very similar Montgomery County by 51 to 49 percent to Clinton. He lost

upscale arty Bucks County by 62 to 38 percent. …the electoral premise of Obama’s campaign – that

he can attract middle class Republicans and Independents--is being undermined. Indeed, if you look

at Obama’s vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern

coalition that haunted the Democrats during the ‘70s and ‘80s, led by college students and

minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State’s

Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia. Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in

the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even

conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as “very

liberal.” In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among “very liberal” voters by 55 to 45 percent, but

lost “somewhat conservative” voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent. In

Wisconsin and Virginia, by contrast, he had done best against Clinton among voters who saw

themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative. Obama even seems to be acquiring the religious

profile of the old McGovern coalition. In the early primaries and caucuses, Obama did very well

among the observant. In Maryland, he defeated Clinton among those who attended religious

services weekly by 61 to 31 percent. By contrast, in Pennsylvania, he lost to Clinton among these

voters by 58 to 42 percent and did best among voters who never attend religious services, winning

them by 56 to 44 percent. There is nothing wrong with winning over voters who are very liberal and

who never attend religious services; but if they begin to become Obama’s most fervent base of

support, he will have trouble (to say the least) in November. The primaries, unfortunately, are not

342 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

going to get any easier for Obama. While he should win easily in North Carolina, where he benefits

from a large African-American vote and support in the state’s college communities, he is going to

have trouble in Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, where he will once again be faced by a large

white working class vote. He can still win the nomination and lose these primaries. Pennsylvania

was the last big delegate prize. But if Obama doesn’t find a way now to speak to these voters, he is

going to have trouble winning that large swath of states from Pennsylvania through Missouri in

which a Democrat must do well to gain the presidency. That remains Obama challenge in the month

to come.’ (John B. Judis, “The Next McGovern? — Obama may still get the nomination, but his

loss tonight deals a harsh blow to his electability arguments,” The New Republic, April 23, 2008)

Judis was flayed and vilified by the true believers among the lemming legions who saw this essay as

an act of unspeakable lèse majesté.

A right-wing commentator stressed that Obama was showing signs of mental disintegration even

as his vote totals deteriorated, and that there was always the possibility that he might be quickly

taken down by a scandal of the Spitzer type. ‘Hillary won just enough to show that it is ludicrous to

oust a 10-point winner at this late junction, but not quite the blow-out that might cause a stampede

to her in the next few states. The Democrats are tottering at the edge of the abyss. They are about to

nominate someone who cannot win, despite vastly out-spending his opponent, any of the key large

states — CA, NJ, NY, OH, PENN, TX, etc. — that will determine the fall election. And yet not to

nominate him will cause the sort of implosion they saw in 1968 or the sort of mess we saw in

November 2000. Hillary won’t quit, since she knows that Obama, when pressure mounts, is starting

to show a weird sort of petulance, and drops the “new politics” for snideness. And at any given

second, a Rev. Wright outburst, an Ayers reappearance, another Michelle ‘never been proud’

moment, or another condescending Obamism can cause him to nose dive and become even more

snappy.’ (Victor Davis Hanson, “The Second Coming of McGovern,” National Review.com, April

22, 2008)

OBAMA: ALWAYS THE RACE CARD

Professor Sean Wilentz elaborated on his penetrating diagnosis that the most basic technique of

the Obama campaign was to accuse any critic or opponent of being a racist, all the while denying

that any race card was being played at all by Obama. As the skein of Obama’s defeats lengthened,

the media whores at the Washington Post and other financier controlled press organs began putting

out the line that the problem was not with Obama, but rather with the American people, who were

now being exposed as unreconstructed racists. Here again, we see the logic of the Carter malaise

speech, which is the eternal template for every Trilateral puppet politician: when you get into

trouble because of your own incompetence, treachery, and stupidity, turn the tables as fast as you

can and blame the American people. Wilentz wrote: ‘In fact, all of the evidence demonstrates that

white racism has not been a principal or even secondary motivation in any of this year’s Democratic

primaries. Every poll shows that economics, health care, and national security are the leading issues

for white working class voters - and for Latino working class voters as well. These constituencies

have cast positive ballots for Hillary Clinton not because she is white, but because they regard her

as better on these issues. Obama’s campaign and its passionate supporters refuse to acknowledge

that these voters consider him weaker — and that Clinton’s positions, different from his, as well as

her experience actually attract support. Instead they impute racism to working class Democrats who,

the polls also show, happen to be liberal on every leading issue. The effort to taint anyone who does

not support Obama as motivated by racism has now become a major factor in alienating core

Democrats from Obama’s campaign. Out with the Democratic Party of Jefferson, Jackson, F.D.R.,

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 343

Truman, Kennedy and Johnson, and in with the bright, shiny party of Obama - or what the formally

“undeclared” Donna Brazile, a member of the Democratic National Committee and of the party’s

rules committee, has hailed as a “new Democratic coalition” swelled by affluent white leftists and

liberals, college students, and African-Americans.’ (Sean Wilentz, “Barack Obama and the

Unmaking of the Democratic Party,” Huffington Post, May 23, 2008)

It was a slow motion tragedy unfolding before the eyes of the public: the bosses of the

Democratic Party, because they were controlled by the Wall Street financial elite who demanded

Obama and nothing but Obama, were throwing elementary political prudence out the window to

nominate a candidate who was doomed to defeat under all normal circumstances. At the same time,

the Obama fanatics attempted to motivate their hysterical persistence with the idea that the old

voting blocs were irrelevant, because the Perfect Master was going to bring in hordes of new voters.

‘This year’s primary results show no sign that Obama will reverse this trend should he win the

nomination. In West Virginia and Kentucky, as well as Ohio and Pennsylvania, blue collar white

voters sent him down to defeat by overwhelming margins. A recent Gallup poll report has argued

that claims about Obama’s weaknesses among white voters and blue collar voters have been

exaggerated - yet its indisputable figures showed Obama running four percentage points below

Kerry’s anemic support among whites four years ago. Given that Obama’s vote in the primaries,

apart from African-Americans, has generally come from affluent white suburbs and university

towns, the Gallup figures presage a Democratic disaster among working-class white voters in

November should Obama be the nominee. Yet Obama’s handlers profess indifference - and, at

times, even pride — about these trends. Asked about the white working-class vote following

Obama’s ten-point loss in Pennsylvania, chief campaign strategist David Axelrod confidently told

an National Public Radio interviewer that, after all, “the white working class has gone to the

Republican nominee for many elections going back even to the Clinton years” and that Obama’s

winning strength lay in his ability to offset that trend and “attract independent voters... younger

voters” and “expand the Democratic base.”’ (Sean Wilentz, “Barack Obama and the Unmaking of

the Democratic Party,” Huffington Post, May 23, 2008) It is clear that the attempted radical deemphasis

of blue-collar workers and the white working class in general reflects the characteristic

class hatreds of Obama’s base of support among affluent suburbanites and Malthusian fanatics.

What Axelrod says here also reflects the doctrine which Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dorn, and the rest

of the Weathermen had been professing for four decades, and that is that the white working class is

the enemy and has to be destroyed.

OBAMA: CANDIDATE OF ELITIST CLASS HATRED

AGAINST WHITE WORKERS

As Wilentz points out, the notion that Obama is going to bring in masses of new voters is a

utopian fiction concocted by spin doctors like Axelrod and his ilk: ‘Apart from its basic inaccuracy

about Clinton’s blue-collar support in 1992 and 1996, Axelrod’s statement was a virtual reprise of

the Democratic doomed strategy from the 1972 McGovern campaign that the party revamped in

1988. The main difference between now and then is the openness of the condescension with which

many of Obama’s supporters - and, apparently, the candidate himself - hold the crude “low

information” types whom they believe dominate the white working class. The sympathetic media

coverage of Obama’s efforts to explain away his remarks in San Francisco about “bitter,”

economically-strapped voters who, clinging to their guns, religion, and racism, misdirect their rage

and do not see the light, only reinforced his campaign’s dismissive attitude. Obama’s efforts at

rectification were reluctant and half-hearted at best - and he undercut them completely a few days

344 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

later when he referred derisively, on the stump in Indiana, to a sudden “political flare-up because I

said something that everybody knows is true.” Culturally as well as politically, Obama’s dismissal

of white working people represents a sea-change in the Democrats’ basic identity as the

workingman’s party - one that has been coming since the late 1960s, when large portions of the Left

began regarding white workers as hopeless and hateful reactionaries. Faced with the revolt of the

“Reagan Democrats” - whose politics they interpreted in the narrowest of racial terms - “new

politics” Democrats dreamed of a coalition built around an alliance of right-thinking affluent

liberals and downtrodden minorities, especially African-Americans. It all came to nothing. But after

Bill Clinton failed to consolidate a new version of the old Democratic coalition in the 1990s, the

dreaming began again - first, with disastrous results, in the schismatic Ralph Nader campaign of

2000 and now (with the support of vehement ex-Naderites including Barbara Ehrenreich and Cornel

West) in the Obama campaign. (Sean Wilentz, “Barack Obama and the Unmaking of the

Democratic Party,” Huffington Post, May 23, 2008)

OBAMA BETRAYS THE FORGOTTEN AMERICANS

Wilentz correctly concludes that the Democratic Party is about to cast its fate to the winds in a

way which has obviously tragic implications for the party’s working-class base, many of whom

need the urgent help of a president who is actually sympathetic to their plight and inclined to do is

something about the Bush economy and the related accumulative wreckage of the Bush era.

Wilentz sums up: ‘Obama must assume that the demographics of American politics have changed

dramatically in recent years so that the electorate as a whole is little more than a larger version of

the combined Democratic primary constituencies of Oregon and South Carolina. In any event,

Obama had shown no ability thus far to attract the one constituency that has always spelled the

difference between victory and defeat for the Democratic Party. The party must now decide whether

to go along with Obama and renounce its own heritage — and tempt the political fates.’ (Sean

Wilentz, “Barack Obama and the Unmaking of the Democratic Party,” Huffington Post, May 23,

2008)

The crackpot notion that Obama can somehow win the Electoral College without blue-collar

workers, the white working class, and the Reagan Democrats even spawned a totally new school of

pseudo-sociology. The premise here was that the United States was now a totally parasitical

country with no working-class worth mentioning that was left over. It is of course true that

productive jobs in the United States have been wiped out since the Carter Volcker era at an

unprecedented rate, but it is at the same time a total illusion to think that the Democratic Party can

mean without the support of its traditional working-class base; the defeats of the effete patricians

Gore and Kerry proved just the opposite, in contrast to the victories of Clinton, who did have some

considerable populist appeal. A certain Chris Bowers indulged in a lengthy hallucination about a

utopian world having very little relation to present day reality. Gary Hart in 1984 had claimed that

he would win thanks to the new social ascendancy of the yuppies or young urban professionals.

During the 1990s, a class of affluent young housewives known as soccer moms were supposed to

provide the key demographic for getting elected. After 9/11, these soccer moms became security

moms. Generally speaking, the more elaborate the demographic theory, the smaller the real chance

of the candidate to get elected. This rule of thumb points to big trouble for Obama, since his

signature demographic theory is one of the most arcane to come along in many moons. Obama, you

must realize, is being touted as the candidate of a new, glamorous, and dynamic population group

known as the “creative class.”

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 345

OBAMA’S CHIMERA OF THE “CREATIVE CLASS”

Bowers writes that

…unless Obama somewhat surprisingly does not become the next President of the United

States, the Democratic Party will experience its first changing of the guard since the late 1980’s.

What differences will be in store? Here are the three major changes I expect:

1. Cultural Shift: Out with Bubbas, up with Creatives: There should be a major cultural shift in

the party, where the southern Dems and Liebercrat elite will be largely replaced by rising

creative class types. Obama has all the markers of a creative class background, from his

community organizing, to his Unitarianism, to being an academic, to living in Hyde Park to

shopping at Whole Foods and drinking PBR. These will be the type of people running the

Democratic Party now, and it will be a big cultural shift from the white working class focus of

earlier decades. Given the demographics of the blogosphere, in all likelihood, this is a

socioeconomic and cultural demographic into which you fit. Culturally, the Democratic Party

will feel pretty normal to netroots types. It will consistently send out cultural signals designed to

appeal primarily to the creative class instead of rich donors and the white working class.

2. Policy Shift: Out with the DLC, up with technocratic wonks. My sense of Obama and his

policy team is overwhelmingly one of technocratic, generally less overtly ideological

professional policy types. We should see a shift from the more corporate and triangulating

policy focus of the Democratic Party in the 1990’s, and see it replaced by whatever centrist,

technocratic policies are the wonkish flavor of the month. It will all be very oriented toward

think-tank and academic types, and be reminiscent of policy making in the 1950s, 1960s and

1970s. A sort of “technocratic liberalism” that will be less infuriating than DLC style

governance, but still not overtly leftist.

3. Coalition reorganization: Out with party silos, in with squishy goo-goos. In addition to a

shift in culture and policy focus, I also expect a different approach to coalition building. A longstanding

Democrats approach of transactional politics with different issue and demographic

silos in the party shift toward an emphasis on good government (goo goo) approaches. We will

see lots of emphasis on non-partisanship, ethics reform, election reform instead of on, say,

placating labor unions, environment groups, and the LGBT community by throwing each of

these groups a policy bone or two. Now, the focus will be on broad, squishy fixes that are

designed to appeal to several groups at once.’ (Chris Bowers, Changing of the Guard, open left,

May 8, 2008)

This is the eternal delirium of the crisis-crazed petit bourgeois, who imagines himself or herself

to represent pure and undifferentiated humanity free from all parochial interests, and cannot

imagine that there are billions of people in the world who do not see things in the same way. The

source for this idiocy is a successful and trendy academic huckster by the name of Richard Florida,

the author of Cities and the Creative Class and The Rise of the Creative Class. Here is how Florida

advertises himself on his own website: ‘Just as William Whyte’s 1956 classic The Organization

Man showed how the organizational ethos of that age permeated every aspect of life, Florida

describes a society in which the creative ethos is increasingly dominant. Millions of us are

beginning to work and live much as creative types like artists and scientists always have. Our values

and tastes, our personal relationships, our choices of where to live, and even our sense and use of

time are changing. Leading this transformation are the 40 million Americans – over a third of our

national workforce – who create for a living. This “creative class” is found in a variety of fields,

346 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

from engineering to theater, biotech to education, architecture to small business. Their choices have

already had a huge economic impact. In the future, they will determine how the workplace is

organized, what companies will prosper or go bankrupt, and even which cities will thrive or wither.’

Another creative class pseudo-sociologist is the pretentious and oligarchical journalist of the

New York Times David Brooks, the author of Bobos in Paradise, where the “bobos” or bourgeois

bohemians — that is to say, bourgeois in income and Bohemian in lifestyle, correspond to Florida’s

creative class. These studies actually reflect nothing more than the decline of productive

employment in the United States which has now been going on for 30 years, since the massive

deindustrialization under Trilateral Paul Adolph Volcker, Jimmy Carter’s appointee to head the

Federal Reserve. The United States is widely acknowledged to be falling farther and farther behind

the world standard when it comes to hard scientists and engineers, and this is the creative class

which will be decisive in the 21st century. The United States has fewer and fewer industrial

workers, and fewer and fewer indigenous Ph.D.’s in science. Florida’s analysis has lost some of its

glow since the collapse of the dot com bubble in 2001. The group that he was originally talking

about was made up of fast-talking dot.com stockjobbers, a class that might be better termed as

parasitical subjectivists rather than creative.

As one right-wing commentator points out, the apex of Florida’s creative class sociological

analysis took place in a rare interval of world history when the laws of economics seemed to have

been momentarily suspended — during the lunatic excesses of the 1999-2000 dot com bubble. Its

time has already passed. He argues that ‘Neither the professor nor his most ardent adherents seem

worried that the Internet generation formed its eccentric capitalist culture during a speculative

bubble, when billions of dollars of free-flowing investment capital gave workers and their bosses

the freedom to ignore basic economic concerns, and that now, with that money vanished and many

companies defunct, a focus on such old-economy ideas as profits and tax rates has re-emerged.

Moreover, as Florida’s ideas reach beyond urban-planning types and New Age liberal politicians,

they are at some point likely to find resistance from the hard-core urban Left, composed

increasingly of social-services activists and representatives of public-employee and service-industry

unions, who demand ever more government spending for social programs, not art and culture.

Indeed, the professor’s relentless argument that governments should help furnish bobo-friendly

amenities ultimately comes to sound like a new form of class warfare: old-economy workers have

no place in his utopian dreams. But a far more serious—indeed, fatal—objection to Florida’s

theories is that the economics behind them don’t work. Although Florida’s book bristles with charts

and statistics showing how he constructed his various indexes and where cities rank on them, the

professor, incredibly, doesn’t provide any data demonstrating that his creative cities actually have

vibrant economies that perform well over time. A look at even the simplest economic indicators, in

fact, shows that, far from being economic powerhouses, many of Florida’s favored cities are chronic

underperformers. Exhibit A is the most fundamental economic measure, job growth. The

professor’s creative index—a composite of his other indexes—lists San Francisco, Austin, Houston,

and San Diego among the top ten. His bottom ten include New Orleans, Las Vegas, Memphis, and

Oklahoma City, which he says are “stuck in paradigms of old economic development” and are

losing their “economic dynamism” to his winners. So you’d expect his winners to be big job

producers. Yet since 1993, cities that score the best on Florida’s analysis have actually grown no

faster than the overall U.S. jobs economy, increasing their employment base by only slightly more

than 17 percent. Florida’s indexes, in fact, are such poor predictors of economic performance that

his top cities haven’t even outperformed his bottom ones. Led by big percentage gains in Las Vegas

(the fastest-growing local economy in the nation) as well as in Oklahoma City and Memphis,

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 347

Florida’s ten least creative cities turn out to be jobs powerhouses, adding more than 19 percent to

their job totals since 1993—faster growth even than the national economy. […] Florida’s ten most

creative mid-sized cities are even less impressive economic engines. Since 1993, these cities, which

include such underperformers as Albany, New York, and Dayton, Ohio, have increased their job

totals by about 16 percent—less than the national average.’ (Steven Malangan, “The Curse of the

Creative Class,” City Journal, Winter 2004)

ITALIAN FASCISM AND THE CREATIVE CLASS, 1919-1922

In reality, the situation is far worse. The drooling acolytes of Obama automatically assume that

the presence of artists, writers, movie makers, and other people who claim to be creative is a

guarantee that a social movement is progressive and destined to win. Here once again, a look

backwards at the early years of Italian fascism shows how foolish this attitude really is. The early

years of Italian fascism between 1919 in 1922 saw the participation in the new fascist movement of

a whole series of writers and artists, most of whom were far more gifted than the gaggle of

pretentious no talents who are huddling around Obama. Some of these belonged to the movement or

artistic school known as the futurists. To the surprise of many modern left liberals, it turns out that

these artistically talented futurists were also rabid warmongers, determined to get Italy into World

War I, and then determined to support an aggressive imperialistic foreign policy. The founder of the

futurist movement was Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, who wrote in his 1909 Futurist Manifesto, “We

want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of

the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman. We want to demolish

museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice.” The

fascist futurists Marinetti, Carlo Carrà, Gino Severini, Corrado Cagli, Dante Baldelli, Luigi

Russolo, Ardengo Soffici, and Giacomo Balla were the leading painters of Italy at that time.

Umberto Boccioni the chief sculptor of the group, was also an international celebrity. The architect

Antonio Sant’Elia was another fascist futurist. The futurists glorified danger, war, and the machine

age, attacked academies, museums, and other establishment bastions, and spoke out in favor of

fascism.

Even more important for the development of Italian fascism was Gabriele D’Annunzio, who was

by all odds the most famous and influential Italian novelist and poet of the age. D’Annunzio was a

disciple of Nietzsche who belonged to the decadent school of late 19th century literature.

D’Annunzio character of Andrea Sperelli in his novel Il piacere (The Child of Pleasure) evokes a

typical human type of decadent late 19th century European society. Sperelli could certainly teach

Obama’s most decadent followers a thing or two. D’Annunzio agitated for Italy to enter World War

I, and dropped leaflets on the enemy during a daring Italian air raid on Vienna. Later, he became

the leader or Duce of the fascist forces who seized the city of Fiume, in Istria, along the border with

the newly emerging nation of Yugoslavia. Here D’Annunzio developed most of the ceremonies and

rituals which came to characterize the fascist political liturgy, including the Roman salute, the

balcony speech, the chanting of slogans, and other fascist paraphernalia. Even after Mussolini had

emerged as the principal fascist leader, he was always aware that D’Annunzio represented a very

formidable rival who might have been able to oust him under certain circumstances. Given these

fascist precedents, we need to keep our enthusiasm for the new creative class very much under

control. Self-styled creativity is no guarantee of morality, or even of real creativity.

One might be willing to accept the suicide of the post-1968 multicultural, politically correct,

Malthusian, and neo-Luddite Democratic Party, which had proven to be such so useless for social

change or even for defending what had been won under the New Deal. But then what? ‘Obama’s

348 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

campaign has been very clever in carving out a strategy to amass Democratic delegate votes, but its

momentum is in some ways a Potemkin construction—built largely on victories in states that no

Democrat will win in November—that will fall apart under Republican pressure. And then where

will we be?’ (Adolph Reed Jr., “Obama No,” The Progressive, May 17, 2008)180 That was the view

of many honest Democrats.

HYSTERIA OF THE FINANCE OLIGARCHS FOR OBAMA

But the house organ of the New York financier elite saw things differently. The New York Times

now editorialized against Clinton in an outburst of wild hysteria which reflected all the desperation

of a bankrupt and discredited ruling elite who were now peering into the abyss of defeat and default

everywhere they turned: ‘It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats

had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot

box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in

large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most

loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to

call off the dogs.’ (“The Low Road to Victory,” New York Times, April 23, 2008) Over at the

Washington Post, supposedly serious columnists were raving in favor of Obama like adolescent

girls once did for Elvis or for the Beatles. One sample of this psychotic prose: ‘The presumptive

Democratic presidential nominee is far from perfect. But he has demonstrated the most mysterious

and precious gift in politics, which is grace under pressure. […] What’s compelling about Obama is

that fusion of grace and ambition. He’s playing for the highest stakes, but he makes it look easy.

That cool, graceful quality evokes John F. Kennedy and the Rat Pack — all these sleek, handsome

men in silk suits and skinny ties who never break character, never miss a beat.’ (David Ignatius,

“Mr. Cool’s Intensity,” Washington Post, May 11, 2008)

OLBERMANN DEMANDS VIOLENCE AGAINST SEN. CLINTON

Over at MSNBC, the Brzezinski Network, Obamakin media whores Keith Olbermann and

Howard Fineman of Newsweek showed their contempt for democracy and representative

government by demanding that the superdelegates immediately abort and override any remaining

primaries and proceed to the coronation of the divine Barry. Fineman demanded that “grownups”

come forward “like a referee in a fight” to separate the contenders. These, Fineman opined, would

be “the super-super-super delegates” – exalted oligarchs indeed. Olbermann emphatically nodded

assent, saying that the need was for heavies powerful enough to take Mrs. Clinton into a room “and

only he comes out.” Here was another blatant document of elitism parading itself in a psychotic

public tantrum. A threat of violence to a presidential candidate was also implied. Maybe it was time

for the Secret Service to visit Olbermann. In any case, it was time for the old sports junkie to get the

sack. James Poniewozik, the media critic of Time Magazine, registered the degeneracy of this Keith

Olbermann, who had now advanced to the position of chief resident yelping media hound of

MSNBC, otherwise known as Obamavision. Olbermann had re-invented himself based on the usual

two points, opposition to Bush and opposition to the Iraq war. Olbermann launched a tirade at

Clinton after she made a garbled remark about the Robert Kennedy assassination in relation to the

unusual length of the 2008 primary and the media hysteria calling on her to drop out. Poniewozik

commented acutely: “Even if we concede his argument--that Clinton was at best callously and at

worst intentionally suggesting she should stay in the race because Obama might be killed--every

time he turns up the volume to 11 like this lately, he sounds like just another of the cable gasbags he

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 349

used to be a corrective to.” (James Poniewozik, “Keith Olbermann Blows Last Remaining Gasket,”

Time, May 27, 2008)

Former SDS leader and foundation fellow traveler Tom Hayden worried that Obama was too

weak on the issues, and was losing out to Hillary for that basic reason: “...Obama’s basic problem is

that he relies on stylistic differences rather than substantive ones, because he believes he cannot

attack Clinton on policy grounds and still maintain his centrist orientation. She senses that, is

therefore neutralizing the policy differences, and taking the offensive to demolish his character

claims. Between two candidates with personal baggage, she figures the voters will ultimately vote

for experience.” (Huffington Post, April 23, 2008) But there were very important policy differences

between Clinton and Obama, and these explained the way the Democratic Party was dividing.

Clinton was for a freeze on foreclosures and on interest rate resets on adjustable rate mortgages;

Obama wanted to let the “market” work. Clinton had crossed into explicit New Deal territory by

proposing the re-creation of the Home Loan Ownership Corporation, an FDR creation. Clinton

commented: “During the Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress dealt with huge

impending foreclosures by creating the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC. Now, a small but

growing group of academics and public figures, including Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat

of Connecticut, is calling for the federal government to bring back something like the HOLC. Count

me in.”181 Obama’s man Goolsbee sniffed that one had to respect the “market,” instead. Clinton was

for universal health care; Wall Street crowed that Obama was the only Democrat who opposed it.

Clinton wanted to apply the New Deal method by lifting the 18¢ per gallon federal gasoline tax, and

shifting the resulting tax burden to a windfall profits tax on the oil cartel to keep the Highway

Construction Fund replenished and maintain jobs on the front. Obama cited a myriad of reactionary

pro-Wall Street economic charlatans to assert that this was pandering; he lost the Indiana primary as

a direct result. Clinton, having learned something during the campaign, wanted to re-open NAFTA

and other free trade sellouts. Obama gave lip service to this idea, but sent Goolsbee to reassure the

Canadians that this was pure electioneering demagogy. Clinton was for a robust manned space

program, one of the indispensable science drivers for any future recovery; Obama wanted to wipe

out the manned space program by shifting the funds into education – a cheap and transparent antiscience

ploy. Obama’s advisors, especially the pudgy-faced Jason Furman and his sidekick Jeffrey

Liebman, wanted to begin privatizing Social Security to please Robert Rubin of bankrupt Citibank;

Clinton was having none of this. Even more important, as time went on, Obama moved towards the

Wall Street financier line on all major issues, while Clinton moved in the New Deal direction. It

was a clear choice.

CLINTON IN NEW DEAL TERRITORY

In economic policy, Michelle Obama’s veiled references to broken souls and a future of sacrifice

and the presence of ultra-right Friedmanite Chicago school ideologues like Austan Goolsbee make

clear that an Obama presidency will be one of savage austerity, economic sacrifice, and a lowering

of the standard of living for the already exhausted and depleted US population. There will be

onerous global warming taxes to please Al Gore, global solidarity taxes for third world subversion,

and much more. The proceeds will flow to Wall Street. Corporate state entities of the type

demanded by Rubin, Soros, Rohatyn and Rudman will be set up to exploit the infrastructure crisis

to create new financial bubbles. Obama is likely to cause more immiseration that Carter, who still

holds the post-Hoover record in this sad department. Civil war in the US is a distinct possibility.

Sen. Clinton, by contrast, benefited by being betrayed and scorned by the worst Wall Street

predators (Rockefeller, Soros), the worst media whores, and the worst Democratic Party elitists. She

350 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

would be beholden in the White House to none of them, but rather to blue collar workers. She had

evolved in the direction of the Franklin D. Roosevelt New Deal on a number of issues. Most

important, Hillary and Bill Clinton offered the greatest potential in sight for escaping the status of

puppet of the banking establishment which has been the tendency for post-1944 presidents.

Together, they might even hope to approximate a new FDR presidency. Sen. Clinton’s considerable

fighting qualities were our best bet in this regard; she had already stopped the Obama coup several

times, when weaker figures like Edwards ran away.

REVEREND WRIGHT: OBAMA JUST ANOTHER POLITICIAN

Obama’s marplot spiritual guru was not about to hop in his Porsche, drive home to his $1.6

mansion, start enjoying his $10 million line of credit, and taste the many joys of leisured and

affluent victimhood. On the last weekend of April 2008, Reverend Wright went on the offensive to

assert the validity of his personal school of racist provocations. He was interviewed by Bill Moyers,

LBJ’s former flack and salesman for the Vietnam war, and now the dean of the foundation-funded

media whores in public television. Here Wright suggested that Obama was simply a prevaricating

“politician” who responded like a politician, trimming and fibbing according to the needs of the

moment. It was not a good ad for Obama’s pretentious claim to float above the vulgar political fray.

Then there was a stop in Dallas, where Wright revealed that he had been crucified by being denied

the honorary degrees and triumphant lecture appearances which he clearly felt were his due. Then it

was on to the NAACP dinner in Detroit, where the Jeremiad proffered his view that the media were

unfairly stressing that the candidate was “Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Barack HUSSEIN Obama,

Barack HUSSEIN Obama.” At the National Press Club in Washington on the morning of April 28,

Wright was in the full exultance of the manic phase. He basked in attention of hundreds of reporters

of thirty television cameras. He repeatedly identified the black church with his own inflated ego, an

act of gross historical injustice to the majority of black traditionalist churches who wanted nothing

to do with the cursing and hating of his own style, nor with the synthetic religion that was black

liberation theology.

What finally did Wright want? Above all, he wanted attention, since he was a megalomaniac in

no way inferior to Obama. What else did he want? As it turned out, he wanted an apology for

slavery and racism. All this sound and fury for mere words, a mere piece of paper expressing

sorrow for the wrongs of the past. It showed that Wright was not capable of formulating demands

that might be meaningful for the lives of the real victims of today, the majority of the black

population who remained trapped in the poverty of the inner city ghetto. The black majority, the

black underclass, needed something far more meaningful than a mere apology that would leave

them exactly where they were. They needed housing, jobs, health care, education, urban mass

transit, a ban on foreclosures, measures to control the gas price, and a whole series of other

improvements in the material conditions of their lives. The resources needed for those

improvements would be measured in the trillions of dollars. But what of that? In March 2008 alone,

Bernanke had pumped almost half a trillion into the banking system to deal with the Bear Stearns

debacle. The same money pumped into American cities would create a new world. A few of those

injections, properly invested, would go far towards lifting the Other America out of poverty and

despair. The beneficiaries would be inner city blacks, to be sure. But they would also be poor whites

in Appalachia, the high plains, and the rest of rural America. They would be Latino migrant farm

workers. They would be super-exploited Vietnamese, Koreans, and other Asians. And that would be

a united front of the American people against Wall Street. This, of course, was the eventuality that

the Ford Foundation and other sponsors of black liberation theology were paying good money to

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 351

sabotage and abort. So Wright used his hour of fame to demand essentially nothing for the most

disadvantaged part of the black community – just like his friend Farrakhan, who had ruined the

success of the Million Man March by giving a raving speech about numerology and occult

freemasonic symbolism instead of laying out a fighting program to rebuild America for all the

people.

Down the road was even more trouble, since Wright was now promising a book to be published

in October 2008, on the eve of the general election. And if there was to be a book, there would also

be a book tour, with innumerable press conferences and press availabilities, and unending

opportunities for Wright to embarrass and sabotage Obama, if he were still in the race at that point.

As soon as the primaries were over, Obama quit Trinity United once and for all. But after 20 years,

it was much too late to neutralize the issue. Obama was clearly a candidate with so many demolition

charges built in that Democrats now had to jettison this fatal baggage before he dragged them down.

TONGUE-TIED: OBAMA’S CATASTROPHIC

PRESS CONFERENCE OF APRIL 29, 2008

April was indeed the cruelest month for Obama. What followed was one of the most bizarre

press conferences in recent American history. This time there was no teleprompter, and for this the

Perfect Master paid a terrible price. No longer was his head thrown back in haughty superiority.

Now his eyes were downcast, his speech halting, his demeanor grim and saturnine, with streaks of

anger. Never had the Perfect Master stuttered, stammered, paused, halted, hiccupped, and gurgled

so much as on this fateful occasion. He said “uuh” a great deal. He drew out the word “and” until it

seemed to have two syllables. Never had the great balcony orator been so tongue-tied. A good index

of the disintegration of Obama’s troubled personality might have been the “y’know index.” As long

as he had read off teleprompters, he had been fluent. As long as he stuck to the pre-masticated

utopian platitudes and messianic clichés of his stock stump speech as written by the Grub Street

scrivener Favreau, he had been reasonably proficient. But now, when he had to extemporize under

fire, and above all to exercise some sort of self-reflexive and self-critical judgment, the words

would not come. Obama was now the waffle candidate, and he proved it by waffling on the Wright

issue. Even with hell gaping below his candidacy, he could not bring himself to break definitively

with the racist provocateur. He was still a member of Wright’s church, and he would not quit that

church unless and until he had conferred with Reverend Otis Moss III, the Ford Foundation scholar

who was now the pastor. Even when Obama’s political survival was at stake, he was a wimp who

could not be decisive.

OBAMA – APOSTATE MOSLEM OR MAHDI ?

Many Obama backers tried to create the impression that Obama’s Moslem name would

automatically win him the good will of a billion Moslems around the world. But this may represent

a misconception on the part of handlers like Brzezinski, who is notorious for knowing virtually

nothing of the Islamic world and of many of the parts of the world that he tries so hard to

manipulate and destroy. Would Obama be able to give US imperialism a face lift and a new lease on

life among the Moslems? A veteran neocon warned against the ‘argument that Mr. Obama’s

election would raise America’s esteem in Africa — indeed, he already arouses much enthusiasm in

his father’s native Kenya and to a degree elsewhere on the continent. But it is a mistake to conflate

his African identity with his Muslim heritage. Senator Obama is half African by birth and Africans

can understandably identify with him. In Islam, however, there is no such thing as a half-Muslim.

352 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Like all monotheistic religions, Islam is an exclusive faith. As the son of the Muslim father, Senator

Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference

that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under

Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant. […] His

conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from

the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of

all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to

forgive). With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all

adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands

of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to

cases in which lesser punishments were ordered — as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have

been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy — but those were really instances of

supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obama’s case.) It is true that the

criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law

doing exactly that is pending before Iran’s Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a

practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist

demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities. For example, in Iran

in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and others won a Christian convert a last-minute

reprieve, but the man was abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in

Afghanistan, a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent his execution, and he was still

forced to flee to Italy. Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President

Obama — not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious

courts dominate over secular law — another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it

prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference

with such a killing.’ (Edward N. Luttwak, “President Apostate?” New York Times, May 12, 2008)

DONALD YOUNG: MURDER IN WRIGHT’S CATHEDRAL

A dangerous scandal looming over Obama was the murder of Donald Young, the gay

choirmaster in Wright’s and Obama’s church, whose bullet-riddled body was found last Christmas

morning. The Globe of May 19, 2008 quoted the opinion of a Chicago private detective that Young

was murdered to keep him quiet about Obama, meaning the candidate’s notorious homosexual

activities. These latter are attested to by Larry Sinclair of Minnesota, who has a federal civil suit

pending in which he alleges that he had two gay sex encounters with Obama in 1999, with Obama

indulging in crack cocaine. Sinclair also alleges that Donald Young tried to sound him out about

matters related to Obama before Young was murdered. This first echelon also includes Reverend

James David Manning’s “Trinity of Hell” tape, which names Obama and Wright as closet

homosexuals, a charge repeated by Manning on the Hannity radio program. Was Obama Wright’s

catamite? Murder in the cathedral, gay sex, and crack cocaine now loomed over Obama’s arrogant

claim of victory.

THE OBAMA BODY COUNT

There were other mysterious deaths related to Trinity United and the surrounding area. Two

other young black men that attended the same church—Larry Bland and Nate Spencer—also died

within 40 days of each other, beginning in November 2007. Nate Spencer was a member of the

TUCC Sanctuary Choir; his funeral was held on Monday January 7, 2008. All three were openly

homosexual. Larry Sinclair stated in sworn affidavits that Obama is a closet bisexual with whom he

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 353

had sexual and drug-related encounters in November 1999. Sinclair also claimed that Obama was

personally acquainted Donald Young and that choir director Donald had contacted him shortly

before being murdered from multiple gunshot wounds on December 23, 2007. These killings are

receiving a number of different reactions. Mike Parker, reporting for CBS in Chicago, wrote,

“Activists fear gay African-Americans are being targeted for murder,” while Marc Loveless of the

Coalition for Justice and Respect queries, “Are we under attack? Is this a serial killer?” An even

more sinister aspect of this case is being investigated. Sinclair has stated in an affidavit to the

Chicago Police Department, Donald Young had informed him that he and Barack Obama were

“intimate” with each other. Sinclair revealed in a January 18, 2008, YouTube video that on two

separate occasions in November 1999, he engaged in sexual acts with Obama, and that Obama

smoked crack cocaine—once in a limousine and the other time at a hotel in Gurnee, Ill. Sinclair has

also raised the important question of why Donald Young, whom he had never met, would initiate

these calls using cell phone numbers which Sinclair had given to the Obama campaign, at a time

when Sinclair had not yet gone public with any part of his story and was therefore not a public

figure. A private investigator connected to the Chicago Police Department told the Globe, “Donald

Young was silenced because of something he knew about Obama. Donald was in a position where

he heard a lot of things and saw a lot of things concerning Barack.” … The unavoidable fact was

that three gay black men had died, two by violence, within a span of 40 days among the members of

Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, which at the time was the object of consuming

media attention. 182

MICHELLE OBAMA, RACIST; ILYAS ACHMADOV, ENVOY OF TERRORISTS

Another echelon of scandal was the Michelle Obama racist tirade against white America,

reportedly employing extreme language. Still another echelon involved contacts of the Obama

campaign to certain foreign organizations, including terrorist groups like the Chechen rebels. A

mere hint was the case of Robert Malley, who was forced out because he was meeting with Hamas.

Malley was working for the International Crisis Group, which is funded by Soros and features

Brzezinski on its board. Far more explosive are Brzezinski’s lobbying activities for Ilyas

Achmadov, the resident US envoy of the top Chechen terrorist gang, which specializes in massacres

of women and children in hospitals and schools, with a body count in the thousands. Achmadov is

now living in Washington DC with an upscale apartment, a posh office, a secretary, a travel budget,

and a public relations budget, all generously paid for by US taxpayers – an arrangement obtained

for him by Brzezinski. Moscow wants Achmadov extradited to stand trial as a mass murderer and

terrorist, but Brzezinski is protecting him.

SECURING A SUCCESSFUL PARTY REALIGNMENT

This year of 2008 was a rare historical turning point, a watershed party re-alignment election in

the series 1828 (Jackson), 1860 (Lincoln), 1896 (McKinley over Bryan), 1932 (FDR and the New

Deal), and 1968 (the Nixon southern strategy). A new stable progressive coalition for the next four

decades needed to be forged, and only Clinton had shown the ability to permanently incorporate

Latinos, Asians, Reagan Democrats, women, retirees, union households, Jewish voters, and other

key groups which will be critical for dominating the Electoral College until about 2050. Obama was

betting on a congeries of groups and a crazy quilt of oddly assorted states to make it. Clinton’s

underlying appeal to black voters would return once the smoke had cleared. Clinton’s duty was

therefore to act to save the country from national catastrophe under Obama and his controllers,

whatever it took.

354 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

OBAMA BETS EVERYTHING ON GEORGIA AND VIRGINIA

By July, Obama’s hopes for winning at the ballot box (as distinct from by means of scandals

orchestrated by the FBI) came down to this: ‘Obama’s entire claim to redrawing the political map is

based on his perceived ability to win in Southern states precisely because of African-American

voters. … Hillary’s claim that she alone was capable of winning large swing states that Democrats

must win, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, went unnoticed and unheeded by Dean, Pelosi and

others. However, this is a severe and dangerous gamble. As we pointed out a few weeks back, the

Obama campaign seems to know that Ohio and Florida are going to be a stretch, so they are looking

for alternate paths to 270, which means they are relying heavily on the Southern states, especially

Virginia and Georgia. They also discuss the Rocky Mountain states of Nevada, New Mexico and

Colorado, but frankly, even if he wins those three, and Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire

(all three of which will be highly competitive), if he loses Ohio and Florida, he will lose the election

267-271 (this count includes all the states Kerry won). In short, if Obama loses Ohio and Florida,

the three Rocky Mountain states and Georgia and Virginia become must win states. As Senator

Obama will still lose the general election with the three Rocky Mountain states if he fails to swing

Georgia and Virginia, these two states are of particular interest. […] Mr. Obama can write off

Georgia and North Carolina for the same reasons that Mississippi is beyond his reach — although

the math in those two states is slightly less daunting…. But while Obama is throwing millions of

dollars at states that have not gone to Democrats since 1964 (Virginia), and 1992 (Georgia and

Bill), he’ll be opening the door even wider for Republicans in actual swing states. Mike DuHaime,

political director of the Republican National Committee, doesn’t argue with Obama’s fund-raising

advantage. But he disputes the notion that Obama can afford to keep throwing money at long shots

once the campaign really heats up in the fall, and he contends that Obama’s defense of vulnerable

states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio will be much more expensive. “It would take a major

swing to swing these [Southern] states,” says DuHaime. “I don’t fault them for trying to expand the

map, but we have better opportunities in other states that are just as big, if not bigger —

Pennsylvania, Ohio, for example.”’183 Democrats should also note that what is being aimed at here

is not a permanent and durable Democratic majority capable of rebuilding the country, but rather an

odd bloc of states built around the personality cult of Obama. Even if Obama got to the White

House, if the next Democratic nominee after Obama were not also Obama, there would be no

strategy left. As usual, Obama was building a personality cult, not a permanent and reliable voting

bloc with a coherent pattern based on identifiable voter groups. There would be no FDR coalition,

but just a flash in the pan.

OBAMA HAS NEVER WON A CONTESTED ELECTION

The 2008 presidential election represents the second time that Obama has ever run in a truly

contested election. In his 1996 state senate race, he threw all his opponents off the Democratic

primary ballot, which was tantamount to election. In 2000, Obama made a bid for election to the US

House of Representatives, but in this case he had an actual opponent, the incumbent Democrat

Representative Bobby Rush. In this contest, Obama was resoundingly thrashed. In his 2004 US

Senate race in Illinois, his Democratic primary opponent and his Republican general election

opponent were conveniently destroyed by scandals piloted by his friends at the reactionary Chicago

Tribune. In the end, his Republican general election opponent was a carpetbagger and buffoon,

Allan Keyes from Maryland. One wonders why the Democratic Party would ever consider betting

its fortunes in a once in four decades party realignment election on a candidate who has never won a

contested election.

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 355

OBAMA IS WATERGATE-BAIT

In early May, Harold Ickes of the Clinton campaign had talked about an October surprise. This

could have meant a number of things, since Obama was indeed a scandal-rich contender, and one of

the prominent possibilities was the notorious Michelle Obama “Hate Whitey” tape, an apoplectic

outburst of racist rage by the Messiah’s consort, full of violent and obscene invective against the

white race, white American, and other objects of Michelle’s fascistoid rage cathexis. There was an

uneasy awareness, even among the most fanatical Obama acolytes, that there were more scandals

lurking in the Perfect Master’s closet: ‘The Clinton campaign has made it clear that Senator Clinton

remains in the race because anything can happen. That generally has been taken to mean that a

scandal could erupt that would cause the Obama campaign to implode. Some Reverend Wright on

steroids might burst into public view. Keep in mind what happened to Eliot Spitzer.’ (Bob Herbert,

New York Times, May 27, 2008)

RESULT: A LONG HOT SUMMER OF SCANDAL DOSSIERS

Karl Rove increasingly resembled the Japanese Admiral Nagumo at Midway, who dithered and

hesitated when he should have been launching his attack waves at the earliest possible moment. As

a result, he was caught flat-footed with his planes warming up on deck when the main US dive

bomber attack materialized; four Japanese carriers were sunk and the war was as good as lost. Karl

Rove seemed to think that he could hold the Michelle Obama “Hate Whitey” tape in reserve until

mid-October, using it in the next few months to harvest huge quantities of GOP cash to stoke the

fires of his 527 empire. Karl might be more interested in getting his hands on that cash than in

anything else. But he was risking watching McCain get the Spitzer treatment and be swept away in

72 hours. The summer 2008 battle of the scandal dossiers was like thermonuclear war: the greatest

advantage was to be gained by a successful first strike, after which the retaliatory riposte would be

weak and disorganized. The new motto for the holders of the scandal dossiers should be” “Use ‘em

or lose ‘em.” Whatever scandal dossiers you attempt to hold in reserve are likely to be useless, since

your own candidate can be taken down in a day or two, and once such an attack has started it will be

almost impossible to stop it or even disrupt it. Once McCain had the GOP nomination, he was wide

open to scandal attack. The wiser course for the GOP oppo research brigade was to recognize that

Obama was the FBI-CIA intelligence community candidate, and that he was the one slated to enjoy

a scandal-assisted quest for the White House as his opponents were destroyed – or, for that matter,

liquidated. It was far better to destroy Obama before he attained the Democratic nomination, thus

making Hillary the candidate. Hillary was herself more or less impervious to scandals, having

thrived in the crucible of Whitewatergate and Monicagate, but she was not going to get the same

kind of help from the FBI that Obama was sure to have. McCain’s best chance was, ironically and

in contrast to the usual rules, to unload everything preemptively on Obama in June and July, and

then mobilize for a more or less fair fight with Hillary in September and October. If Karl Rove and

company did not do this, it could only mean that they were blinded by greed and not that much

concerned about McCain’s fate, after all.

THE LIKELY CATASTROPHE OF AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY

May of 2008 saw the death of Hamilton Jordan, who had been Jimmy Carter’s top crony from

the Georgia mafia and White House Chief of Staff. David Broder, one of the top ideological

watchdogs of the financier establishment, took this occasion to refer back to interviews that Jordan

had given to historians soon after the end of the disastrous Carter administration. Jordan’s main

356 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

point had been that the Carter coup inside the Democratic Party had only been possible in the first

place because of an extraordinarily high degree of chaos and disorganization among the Democrats

after eight years of Nixon and Ford. Broder noted: ‘The main theme of Jordan’s interview was this

intriguing observation: “Only because of the fragmentation that had taken place” in the Democratic

Party and its allied groups was Carter able to be nominated and elected in 1976. But that same

fragmentation made the challenge of governing so difficult that he was almost doomed to fail. What

Jordan meant was this: In the two previous elections, the Democratic Party was riven by strife over

the Vietnam War, social policy and civil rights. It was bitterly divided by the nomination of Hubert

Humphrey over Eugene McCarthy in 1968, and of George McGovern over Humphrey and others in

1972. In 1974, after Watergate ended the Republican revival, the old-guard Democrats suddenly

confronted an influx of reform-minded new faces in Congress. But once Carter was in the White

House, the liberals who controlled Congress quickly took his measure. They put their obligations to

their constituencies and interest groups ahead of any loyalty to him. He never had a “honeymoon,”

and by his third year his presidency had unraveled, not because of Republican obduracy but because

of his inability to lead his fellow Democrats. gained his first and most important win in Iowa with

37.6 percent of the votes, while Hillary Clinton and John Edwards split almost 60 percent evenly.

Both Carter and Obama lost several late primaries but held on to the delegate lead they had staked

out earlier. This is the cautionary tale Obama and his brain trust could find in Jordan’s interview.

Obama, too, has profited from fragmentation in the Democratic Party that has allowed a long shot,

once again, to capture its greatest prize. But if he is elected, he will have to solve the problems of

fragmentation that doomed Jimmy Carter.’ (David Broder, Washington Post, May 29, 2008)

Naturally, Broder did not mention the real basis of in-depth comparison between Carter and

Obama, which is that both are puppets of the Trilateral Commission and of Zbigniew Brzezinski

personally. Nevertheless, this point is well taken, and has already been discussed by me in the

companion volume to this study, Obama — The Postmodern Coup: the Making of a Manchurian

Candidate, where I developed a detailed comparison between the Carter regime and the likely

outlines of a future Obama rule. By running as a blank slate, and by promising to be all things to all

people, Obama at will necessarily face a moment of shocked recognition when the majority of his

followers be allies that they have been hoodwinked by his sanctimonious utopian platitudes and

vapid messianic rhetoric. That moment is likely to come less than 12 months into Obama’s term in

office. But since the political, economic, and military crisis of the United States today is so much

more severe than it was three decades ago we cannot assume that the penalty for letting Obama into

the White House will be comparable to what it was under Reagan and Bush, bad as those presidents

were. Rather, the perspective under Obama would have to be a catastrophic combination of

hyperinflationary economic depression and breakdown crisis, accompanied by extreme forms of

foreign military adventure likely to end in crushing defeat, with the United States internal political

situation rapidly degenerating in the direction of possible civil war, somewhat along the lines of the

breakdown of public order in the Roman Empire during the 50 year crisis of the third century A.D.

RALPH NADER: OBAMA EXPLOITS WHITE GUILT

There was an immediate necessity for critical voices to start attacking Obama from his left, since

that was his greatest vulnerability. Here was an area where Ralph Nader could perhaps provide an

important public service. Nader shared his views about Obama with the Rocky Mountain News:

Q: Do you see Barack Obama as qualitatively different than Al Gore or any other Democrats.

He talks about taking on lobbyists, not taking money directly from lobbyists ... People portray

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 357

him as being different. Do you see him as being any better than Al Gore or any of the other

Democrats that you’ve opposed over the years?

Nader: No. I mean, he’s deceiving people. He takes, he takes ... In this very building he would

take money from corporate lawyers who are not registered lobbyists but whose desks are across

the aisle from corporate lawyers who are registered lobbyists in the same law firm. That has

been reported more than once in the mainstream press ... Six out of seven industries, as of a

month ago, have given more money to Obama than they have to McCain, only the

transportation industry is more equal opportunity corruption. Look at the health care industry. It

has poured money into his campaign. The securities industry, the defense industry. No. There’s

only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential

candidate. He’s half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I

haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday

loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he

wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in

the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards. I think his main problem is that he

censors himself. He knows exactly who has power, who has too much, who has too little, what

needs to be done right down to the community level. But he has bought the advice that if you

want to win the election, you better take it easy on the corporate abuses and do X, Y, Z. When I

hear that I say, Oh, I see. So he’s doing all this to win the election, and then he’ll be different.

Well let’s see if it worked. Did it work for Mondale? Did it work for Dukakis? Did it work for

Clinton? Yes, but only because of Perot? Did it work for Gore? Did it work for Kerry ... ?

Q: Do you think he’s trying to, what was your term, ‘talk white?’

NADER: Of course. I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician

aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in

the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor are

going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated

by the law. Haven’t heard a thing. I mean, the amount of economic exploitation in the ghettos is

shocking. You’d think he’d propose a task force to at least study it. I mean, these people are

eroded every day. The kids, bodies are asbestos and lead, municipal services discriminate

against them because it’s the poor area, including fire and police protection and building code

enforcement. And then the lenders, the loan sharks get at them, and the dirty food ends up in the

ghettos, like the contaminated meat. It’s a dumping ground for shoddy merchandise. You don’t

see many credit unions there. You don’t see many libraries there. You don’t see many health

clinics there. This is, we’re talking 40-50 million Americans who are predominantly African-

Americans and Latinos. Anybody see that kind of campaigning? Have you seen him campaign

in real poor areas of the city very frequently? No, he doesn’t campaign there.

Q: What do you think the purpose of that is?

NADER: He wants to show that he is not a threatening, a political threatening, another

politically-threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to white guilt. You

appeal to white guilt not by coming on as a black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he’s

coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it’s

corporate or whether it’s simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.184

The Obama cultists howled, but Nader’s points were well taken as far as they went. Libertarian

presidential candidate Bob Barr attacked Obama for his cowardly capitulation on the renewal of the

totalitarian FISA law. Barr promised that he would not betray his supporters in the same way that

Obama had. It was a miserable time to be a Democrat.

358 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

FREE LARRY SINCLAIR, OBAMA’S POLITICAL PRISONER

On June 18, 2008, Larry Sinclair appeared at the National Press Club in Washington DC to

officially deliver his bill of indictment against Obama. Incredibly, he was arrested just after he

concluded the press conference. Sinclair was taken into custody by DC police and US Marshals in

the Square Bar off the Holeman Lounge, where he had spoken to the media. From Wednesday to

Monday, Larry Sinclair was held in the DC Jail, the victim of a Gestapo-style enemies’ list

operation that went beyond Nixon, carried out just three blocks from the White House. Sinclair had

come to the National Press Club to detail his charges that the self-proclaimed Democratic

presidential nominee Barack Hussein Obama had indulged in two homosexual encounters complete

with crack cocaine in early November 1999, that Obama was complicit in the December 2007

assassination of Donald Young, the gay choirmaster of Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of

Christ, and that Obama’s resident perception monger, David Axelrod, had paid the pornographic

website Whitehouse.com $750,000 to organize a campaign of character assassination against

Sinclair, culminating in a faked polygraph test. At the close of the press conference, Sinclair was

arrested inside the press club by US Marshals and DC police, apparently based on an old Delaware

warrant. The Whitehouse.com owner, Dan Parisi, abortively called off his own scheduled press

conference in another room of the Press Club once it was known that Sinclair had been arrested.

GESTAPO TACTICS IN THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB,

THE TEMPLE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Where were the civil libertarians? Where were the paladins of the ACLU? Where were the

outcry and the indignation? Was no one concerned about threats to lynch a gay man for political

reasons in the heart of the nation’s capital? Where were the left liberals who had been ostensibly so

concerned about civil rights and civil liberties from Nixon to Bush-Cheney? Perhaps they were

sleeping, or perhaps they had drunk the Obama Kool-Aid and had become morally insane. Or

perhaps they were so obsessed with the reform of the FISA law and the danger that Bush might be

listening in to their telephone calls that they did not notice when a prominent critic of a presidential

candidate who is infamously a darling of the establishment media was actually arrested, taken into

custody and led away, the target of Gestapo tactics in the National Press Club, the sanctum

sanctorum of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the First Amendment generally. Surely

the weak sisters who had joined Obama’s fifth column were morally insane when they joke about

how Barky’s Myrmidons were able to arrest Sinclair. If the First Amendment does not apply to

speech which is not popular with the establishment and the mob, then the First Amendment does not

exist at all, for anybody. Any journalist or writer should be able to see that they themselves may be

next, now that the US Marshals are serving as the “Fight the Smears” enforcement arm of the

Obama campaign. Selective and vindictive prosecution, anyone?

The mere fact that Larry Sinclair had been able to hold such a successful press conference was

already a serious defeat for the corrupt and brutal Obama machine. Sinclair had appeared in the

Holeman Lounge before more than a hundred journalists, with 10 cameras set up on tripods in the

back of the room. The number of handheld cameras, camcorders, and tape recorders was beyond

counting. The press conference was dignified, businesslike, factual. There was no screaming, no

disruption, no threats or insults. Every journalist who wanted to ask a question was given ample

opportunity to do so, and about three dozen questions were asked. Reasonable follow-ups were

allowed. There were journalists from Britain, from Germany, from India, from China. Most of the

questions represented honest attempts to pin down the facts of what was being alleged.

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 359

Sinclair’s honesty compared favorably to that of most politicians today. He started his

presentation with a detailed admission of his criminal record, jail time served, his pending court

motion to dismiss an old Colorado warrant, and a statement that his troubles with the law date back

more than 20 years to 1980-1986. In the question-and-answer segment, Sinclair gave a straight

answer to every question he was asked. He did not dodge questions, he did not prevaricate, he did

not refuse to answer questions, and he did not bungle his answers. Sinclair has made serious

mistakes in life, as he readily conceded. But Sinclair is not a candidate, not a person who has to be

evaluated by the public and then accepted or rejected. Sinclair came forward as a witness with a

series of allegations to make and a story to tell. It was up to public opinion and most emphatically

the news media to evaluate those allegations and those facts, including through the efforts of

enterprising investigative journalists anxious to make a name for themselves by finding out the truth

about what is potentially the biggest political scandal of the century. Obama, after all, is the

candidate of whom we know little and who needs urgently to be evaluated. The issue posed is not

what you think about Larry Sinclair. The overriding issue is the presidency in a time of military

defeat, institutional crisis, and economic breakdown.

HOMOPHOBIC DEATH THREATS AGAINST SINCLAIR

Obama’s lemming legions, and especially his notorious mercenary squadristi of the Internet, had

done everything possible to sabotage and disrupt Sinclair’s press conference. One Obama backer

had issued a categorical death threat against Sinclair in terms that made it abundantly clear that a

homophobic hate murder might be in the offing. The FBI and the District of Columbia police had

shown zero interest in offering Sinclair protection against a possible hit by one of Obama’s fanatics.

Once it is accepted that police agencies can intervene in political campaigns, it is possible to a rest

or detain almost anyone if the interest is great enough. If nothing can be found at this level, there

are always old parking tickets and library fines that can be ginned up. Any political candidate who

has had dealings with the Federal Elections Commission can be hauled in on some minor technical

violation. The precedent established by the arrest of Sinclair at the National Press Club was

exceedingly ominous for the public life of this country. The irony was that repression was being

carried out not to help the Republicans, but rather under ultra-left cover, to help the radical

subversive Obama.

Since the warrant used as the pretext to arrest Sinclair came from Delaware, attention naturally

turned to Senator Joe Biden, the incorrigible blowhard and defeated presidential candidate who is

now known to be angling for the post of vice president or Secretary of State in a future Obama

regime. We also note that Biden’s son, the nepotist Beau Biden, the current Attorney General of

Delaware, issued the warrant. As the cops would say, the Biden machine, anxious to ingratiate

themselves with Obama, had the means, motive, and opportunity to arrange this outrageous arrest.

For those gullible enough to believe that civil liberties might improve under an Obama regime, this

ought to provide a reality shock. Do not assume that civil liberties will get better under Obama; the

evidence is now that they will get worse. Obama’s National Press Club caper is as blatant as

anything seen under Bush – and Barky is not even in the White House.

At the end of his detailed indictment of Obama, Sinclair demanded information on four points.

The first involves Obama as phone records for November 3, 1999 through November 8, 1999 — the

time frame of the two alleged encounters between Obama and Sinclair, mediated, Sinclair said, by

Paramjit Multani of Five Star Limo at O’Hare Airport. The second involves Obama’s phone

records for September 2007 — December 23, 2007, when Sinclair was receiving probing phone

calls from Donald Young about how much Sinclair had revealed concerning Obama — calls that

360 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

ended when Young was found dead from multiple gunshot wounds just before Christmas 2007.

Sinclair’s third demand for clarification touches communications from Obama, Axelrod, and

campaign manager David Plouffe to Whitehouse.com in January and February 2008. Sinclair’s

fourth point regards possible payments by Obama, Obama’s campaign, Axelrod, Plouffe, and

Axelrod’s AKP Message and Media to Whitehouse.com in that same time frame of January-

February 2008.

OBAMA MUST ANSWER, NOT EVADE

It was up to Obama to answer these charges. It was imperative that this be done promptly,

without further delay, before the Democratic Convention. No responsible citizen wants a president

who can be blackmailed and thus turned into a puppet because he is hiding secrets about bisexual

activities, crack cocaine, political murder, and character assassination campaigns. It was also up to

the great news organizations, including ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, and the

Washington Post, to carry out their responsibility to the public. These news organizations could not

play the role of kept courtesans of those in political power. As Sinclair pointed out, he had told his

story and had thus done everything he could. It was up to the great media concerns to locate and

interview the limo driver Paramjit Multani, to investigate the relevant telephone records, and above

all to question Obama himself about this very serious matter. It was not the role of the corporate

media to sit back and sniff about whether Sinclair had conclusively proven his own case to their

satisfaction or not; the proving or disproving is the responsibility of the media, and let them make

damn sure that they get it right.

By today’s journalistic standards, Sinclair’s allegations were extraordinarily substantive already,

especially when compared with some other major scandal allegations heard during the primaries.

Sinclair had filed a federal civil suit against Obama and Axelrod, complete with sworn affidavits

and court papers. This meant that he was willingly risking rule 11 penalties for filing a frivolous

lawsuit. He had also made statements to the Chicago police about his contacts with murder victim

Donald Young. These steps represented a very high degree of public commitment by Sinclair to the

truth of what he is saying. Compare this to the shoddy standards of the New York Times which, on

February 21, 2008 published and prominently displayed on its front page an innuendo about a

supposed sex affair between Senator McCain and a certain Vicki Iseman, a Washington lobbyist.

Not one single solitary named source was cited to support this innuendo. Or, take the case of Vanity

Fair magazine, the house organ of decadent left liberalism, which included a slander piece against

President Clinton entitled “The Comeback Id” by Todd Purdum in its July 2008 issue. Here again,

there was not one single named source who was willing to have his or her name publicly associated

with Purdum’s sleazy allegations. It was painfully obvious that there is one set of journalistic

standards for the Perfect Master Obama, and another and much laxer set for the competition. This

was intolerable.

NO SECRETS FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO ACCESS THE NUCLEAR BUTTON

It is fair to say that the idea of a private sphere for US presidential candidates about which the

general public is not entitled to know anything became obsolete at the same time that

intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads became available around 1960 to 1965.

Since then, every presidential candidate has in effect appeared before the public asking to get his or

her hands on the thermonuclear button that can start World War III. At this point, the notion of a

private sphere for presidential candidates becomes wholly untenable. In this day and age, we have

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 361

the right to know everything but everything about presidential nominees who are asking for our

votes. We have a right to know their full personal histories, with no exceptions, no omissions, and

no withheld documents. We have a right to know if they are HIV-positive and whether they ever

registered for the draft. We want to know if they have received electroshock, psychopharmaca, and

whether they have been treated by a psychiatrist. We have a right to see their birth certificate, their

college transcript, their senior thesis if they wrote one, their law school transcript, their passport,

papers from earlier times in public office, and all other relevant documents. We have a right to

know about their mother, their father, their sister, their brother, their Aunt Tilly, their best friends at

all stages of life, their boyfriends, their girlfriends, their pets, their backers, their sponsors, their

gurus, their controllers, and their associates of every kind. We want to know what religions they

have professed or not professed. More than a right to know these things, we have an imperative duty

to find them out. For they are asking to get their hands on the thermonuclear button, the misuse of

which can unleash a thermonuclear fireball that will not respect any aspect of the privacy of

ourselves and our family. Naturally, candidates are free to make their own choices in life just like

everybody else: they can choose their religion, their personal associations, their forms of recreation,

and all the rest in any way that they like. But none of this — absolutely nothing — can be claimed

as a secret off limits to the attention of the public. All of it must be thoroughly investigated, aired,

and published when the presidency is at stake. An Air Force crewman at a missile silo in the

Dakotas goes through a background check which leaves scant room for privacy. We must demand

nothing less from presidential candidates.

OBAMA’S COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT AND ALLEGED COCAINE USE

Larry Sinclair alleges that Obama has indulged in crack cocaine. Those familiar with the public

literature about the current tenant of the White House know very well that there are many

indications that his extraordinarily low level of performance may derive from cognitive impairment

brought on by habitual cocaine use. How many more coke fiends in the White House are

compatible with the further national survival of the United States? Ronald Reagan notoriously

suffered from cognitive impairment and constantly made his remarks off index cards which he kept

hidden in his hands. Those index cards were a low-tech version of the glass plates of the

Teleprompter upon which Obama relies. As soon as he cannot read his words off those glass plates,

Obama begins to stutter, to stammer and babble, to hem and to haw, repeatedly losing his syntax

and constantly interjecting “um” and “you know.” What if Obama’s cocaine use really did not stop

in 1981, as he suggests in his memoir, and continued all the way to late 1999 at the very least, as

Larry Sinclair has alleged? That might suggest that Obama suffers from greater cognitive

impairment than Bush, as Obama’s incredible series of gaffes at the end of the primaries also

indicates. Larry Sinclair stressed during his press conference that he has been a gay man all his life,

and that he regarded the crack cocaine issue as the central one, at least until the time of the Donald

Young murder. During the press conference, Sinclair announced that he was willing to make his

own personal medical records, including mental health records, available to responsible

representatives of accredited news organizations, at their own expense. That means that Sinclair is

much more forthcoming about his medical history than Obama, who has withheld his medical

records and offered a single meaningless page of advertising copy signed by his personal physician.

And remember that Sinclair was not running for any office, while Obama wants to be president. In

the meantime, Larry Sinclair was still the target of frame-up operations, threats, and harassment.

What kind of a presidential campaign would we have when critics of the most radical subversive to

ever get this close to the presidency have to worry about a knock on the door in the middle of the

362 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

night? There was a rising demand that the Obama campaign drop their enemies’ list operation

against Larry Sinclair, release him from jail at once, and halt their vendetta against him.

SIGNS OF OBAMA’S MENTAL DISINTEGRATION: THE GAFFES

The right-wing commentator Michelle Malkin called attention to Obama’s unprecedented string

of public gaffes: for Malkin, Obama was ‘a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large

and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign: Last May, he claimed that

Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a

tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll:

12. Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months,

we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to

go.” Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience, Obama exulted: “Thank

you Sioux City…I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.” Explaining last week

why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen.

Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not

surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is

Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois? Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with

maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed

his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: “There was something stirring

across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to

march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.” Obama was born in

1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama

was “speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.”

Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in

Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if

they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder

for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto,

Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages. Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of

the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste clean-up: “Here’s something

that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford,

uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I

promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.” I assume on

that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that

addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated

nuclear waste site.’185 Obama first said Iran was a tiny country that did not pose a threat, then that it

was not a threat a few days later – a very ominous and light-headed performance.

When Obama was in Sunrise, Florida, he thought he was in Sunshine, Florida: “How’s it going,

Sunshine? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everybody. It’s good to be in Sunshine!”

Obama declared on taking the stage this afternoon for a rally at the BankAtlantic Arena in Broward

County, Fla., just west of Ft. Lauderdale.186 On Memorial Day 2008, Obama intoned: “As our

nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here

today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong. (New Mexico, Memorial Day 2008) Obama

also boasted that his grandmother’s brother, Charlie Payne, helped liberate a Buchenwald sub-camp

in April 1945 as part of the 89th Infantry Division. But it was the Soviet Red Army that freed the

inmates of Auschwitz.187 None of this made any impact on the swooners of the controlled corporate

media. Arch-oligarch David Broder, for example, continued to write hogwash like this about

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 363

Barky’s “innocents abroad” world blitz: “…as millions of Americans who watched the primary

campaign learned, Obama is invariably articulate. There would be no verbal gaffes.”188 Invariably

articulate? No gaffes? Obama’s Teleprompter dependency and gaffes, like Carter’s infamous

“fuzziness,” had already emerged as a major campaign issue. Without the glass plates of the

Teleprompter, Obama hemmed and hawed, or virtually babbled in delirium. What planet was

Broder living on? This column posed the question of mental impairment not just for Obama, but for

Broder as well.

OBAMA’S MENTAL DEBILITY:

IMPLICATIONS OF NEW MARIJUANA RESEARCH

By a happy coincidence, new evidence of the relation between marijuana use and mental

impairment came to light late in the primary season. Given Obama’s confession of heavy marijuana

use, these considerations are highly relevant to his qualifications for the presidency: ‘Long-term

heavy use of marijuana may cause two important brain structures to shrink, Australian researchers

[have found]. Brain scans showed the hippocampus and amygdala were smaller in men who were

heavy marijuana users compared to nonusers, the researchers said. The men had smoked at least

five marijuana cigarettes daily for on average 20 years. The hippocampus regulates memory and

emotion, while the amygdala plays a critical role in fear and aggression. The study, published in the

American Medical Association’s journal Archives of General Psychiatry, also found the heavy

cannabis users earned lower scores than the nonusers in a verbal learning task — trying to recall a

list of 15 words. The marijuana users were more likely to exhibit mild signs of psychotic disorders,

but not enough to be formally diagnosed with any such disorder, the researchers said. “These

findings challenge the widespread perception of cannabis as having limited or no harmful effects on

(the) brain and behavior,” said Murat Yucel of ORYGEN Research Centre and the University of

Melbourne, who led the study.’ (Will Dunham, “Heavy marijuana use shrinks brain parts: study,”

AP, June 2, 2008) Reporters who get to question Obama should ask him how his hippocampus and

amygdale are doing these days. Not well, we fear.

THE ROLL CALL OF THE STATES DECIDES THE NOMINEE – NOT DEAN

It was unthinkable that any responsible political leader would be willing to see Obama receive

the nomination while the sword of Damocles of further scandals hung over his head. Larry

Sinclair’s videotape had been on the Internet since mid-January, and it had at various times been the

object of discussion on something approaching a million websites. The issues are Obama’s crack

cocaine use, his bisexuality, his possible involvement in the Donald Young assassination, and the

allegations of character assassination and harassment against Sinclair funded by the Obama

campaign. There was also the matter of the Michelle Obama “hate whitey” tape. Karl Rove knew

all about each one of these points, and there was no way to deter Karl Rove and his cohorts. So,

although it might have incomprehensible to Obama’s drooling acolytes, the interest of the

Democratic Party was best served by thorough airing of these allegations to before the roll call of

the states is held on August 27, 2008 — and this was exactly what Sinclair had been trying to do

since mid-January. If Sinclair had been a GOP deployment, he would simply have waited for

September or October to come forward.

There were of course those who lamented and regretted that it was necessary to dredge up the

sordid details of a figure like Obama. They suggested that it was better to use political campaigns

to talk about issues. This might sound plausible, but it is totally wrong, and the fault rests with

364 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Obama. First, Obama does not campaign on issues in any systematic way. He presents himself as

the Perfect Master, the Anointed One, the Savior, the Messiah, the Mahdi. His hysterical followers

are obsessed, not with a political program or a set of issues, but with the personality cult of Obama.

This means that any attempt to engage Obama on the issues is by definition an impotent and selfdefeating

tactic. The only useful objections that can be made to Obama are ad hominem

biographical revelations designed to show that he is not so anointed after all, and that his ability to

walk on water has been overestimated. Then there is also the matter of Obama’s notorious duplicity

and flip-flops even where he does have specific positions on certain issues. First Obama wanted a

fixed schedule for getting out of Iraq, but Samantha Power revealed that this was not the case at all.

Barky said he wanted a different kind of foreign policy, and then he pandered to AIPAC, probably

lying through his teeth in the process. First Obama wanted to help the lower income brackets, but

now he is talking about cutting the corporate income tax. Obama attacked free trade in Ohio and

Pennsylvania, even as his top economic controller, Austan Goolsbee of the Friedmanite Chicago

School reassured the Canadians that this was just election posturing; now Obama told Fortune

magazine that he likes free trade and is devoted to “free markets.”189 First Obama was going to be

tough on FISA; now he went going along with the Democratic congressional leaders as they attempt

to appease Bush. Obama had built his career on ethics in government and reducing the role of

political contributions; now he turned his back on the only meager legislative achievements by

becoming the first presidential candidate in modern times to repudiate matching funds in the general

election. Most dramatic was Obama’s about face on Iraq, where he was now signaling an openended

commitment. On all these points, to attempt a substantive debate with Obama is a fool’s

errand. The only way to pin Barky down was through pointed reference to crucial facts in his own

background, biography, and associations which cannot be changed or swept under the rug. Any

other approach was deliberate impotence and capitulation.

DEAN-BRAZILE MINORITY COUP SPLITS DEMOCRATS

On May 31, 2008 the Rules Committee of the Democratic National Committee took a giant step

on the road to political suicide. Their decision to cut in half the voting strength of the Florida and

Michigan delegations effectively disenfranchised the voters of these two vital and indispensable

states, and reduced them to second-class citizenship. Even the infamous three-fifths compromise

embodied in the US Constitution of 1787 treated a slave better than the Democratic National

Committee was treating the voters of Florida and Michigan. Without these two states, any

Democratic ticket was doomed to defeat in the November election. The Democratic Party does not

exist for the primary purpose of obeying its own rules; it exists for the purpose of winning elections,

and the goal of such winning is that the interests of the people may be served and defended. This

basic truth of equity had now been trampled on by the Dean-Brazile-Obama Wall Street puppets.

Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, and their retainers argued that they owe it to black voters and to

fervent youthful idealists to make sure that Obama gets the nomination. In reality, the Democratic

National Committee has proven over and over again that it does not care a damn about black voters,

nor about young voters either. Dean and Brazile get their orders from Wall Street bankers like

Rockefeller and Soros and their associated think tanks, and it is these Wall Street interests that are

demanding Obama be nominated to carry out a program of draconian domestic economic austerity

and a final confrontation with Russia and China, as prescribed by the Brzezinski Plan. By their

actions, Dean, Brazile, and the Obama campaign had already split the Democratic Party. It is they

who had to assume the historical responsibility for the impending scission. If you exclude half of

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 365

Michigan and half of Florida, you have already split the party, and this is what the Obama camp had

done.

Obama’s candidacy was already beset by at least five distinct orders of scandal. First was the

fact that he was the product of a nest of racist foundation-funded provocateurs associated with

Reverend Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, with the renegade theolib priest Father Pfleger

being merely the latest in the series of these racist hate mongers to come to the attention of the

public. Second was the fact that Obama was a product of a nest of Weatherman terrorists, including

Obama’s close friends Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who have sponsored his career at a

number of critical points. Third is the fact that Obama was sunk up to his eyeballs in a cesspool of

corruption and graft associated with the Daley-Blagojevich Cook County Democratic machine and

ongoing criminal conspiracy known as the Illinois bipartisan Combine, which features the

Levantine gangsters Antoin Rezko, Nadhi Auchi, and former Iraqi Electricity Minister Aiham

Alsammarae. Fourth was a complex of scandals involving murder, cocaine, and illicit sex,

associated with the names of Larry Sinclair and of Donald Young, the gay choirmaster of Wright’s

church who was found murdered last Christmas morning. Fifth were the relations between the

Obama campaign and terrorist patsy groups in the Middle East. The relations of Robert Malley

with Hamas have already led Obama to dump Malley. The next phase may well involve the

sponsorship in Washington of Ilyas Achmadov, the envoy of the murderous Chechen terrorist

organization, by Obama’s top controller and guru, Zbigniew Brzezinski. These five echelons of

scandal meant that Obama was out of the question as a viable candidate of the Democratic Party.

According to a Rasmussen poll, about one third of Democrats and one half of Clinton supporters

wanted Senator Clinton to be on the November ballot without regard to what the Democratic bosses

might decree. These results were gathered in a situation when this option was totally taboo for the

controlled corporate media. With some elementary mass political education, these numbers would

rise considerably overnight. What was needed was the certain trumpet.190

FISA BETRAYAL WAS PREDICTABLE – WATCH THE HANDLERS

Some were surprised when Obama betrayed the pathetic faith of his duped supporters and broke

his solemn promise to filibuster the new FISA law if it contained automatic immunity for telecom

companies who had broken the law at the urging of the Bush-Cheney police state operators. There

should have been no surprise: on this issue as on others, it is generally enough to look at who

Obama’s handlers and controllers are to see how he will come down in the end. In this case, the top

issue controller was John Brennan, who had told National Journal: “I do believe strongly that

[telecoms] should be granted that immunity,” former CIA official John Brennan told National

Journal reporter Shane Harris in the interview. “They were told to [cooperate] by the appropriate

authorities that were operating in a legal context.” Before leaving government to join the private

sector, Brennan had been the head of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), a joint office

operated by the CIA, FBI and other government agencies. At the time Brennan said this, his

remarks were in direct conflict with the line that Barky was still spouting on the stump. In a serious

campaign, Brennan would have been fired for bucking the party line. But within a few weeks, the

stump speeches were forgotten and the orders from the handlers and controllers, in this case

Brennan, prevailed. (Justin Rood, ABC News) We can use this method to repeat the firm prediction

that Obama will attempt to privatize Social Security, based on the past track record of advisers like

Jason Furman, Jeffrey Liebman, and Austan Goolsbee in that regard. Another case was that of the

infamous genocide procuress Samantha Power, who had blurted out before Ohio that Obama’s

stump remarks on the timetable for Iraqi pullout were meaningless hot air, and that Obama would in

366 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

effect do whatever he wanted about Iraq. Samantha Power’s remarks came true in early July,

releasing a shock wave that might doom the Obama candidacy in its entirety. There was also

NAFTA: Obama said he was critical, but Austan Goolsbee told Canadian officials that Barky was a

free trader, and Goolsbee had been right, as Obama’s Fortune interview showed.

OBAMA’S SHIFT TOWARDS ENDLESS WAR IN IRAQ

On July 3, Barack Obama revealed once and for all that he is an imposter and a con artist. From

the very beginning, the foundation of Obama’s campaign and his claim to possess superior strategic

and moral judgment had been his claim to oppose Bush’s Iraq war. In a North Dakota campaign

event, Obama declared that he would consult with the generals and “refine his position” on the Iraq

war. The Washington Post headlined: “Obama May Consider Slowing Iraq Withdrawal.” But the

real message was clear: Obama was moving rapidly away from his earlier 11-month or 16-month

timetables for withdrawal and towards full support for endless war, endless bloodbath, and endless

bankruptcy in Iraq. Samantha Power had confessed Obama’s doubletalk on Iraq months ago. The

handwriting was now on the wall: Obama would soon go to Iraq, meet with General Petraeus, and

then announce his Baghdad road conversion to a policy of open-ended military occupation,

oblivious to the immense human costs. Soon there would be no difference at all between Obama

and McCain on the Iraq war, and the Democratic Party would have missed yet another historic

opportunity to help the American people end Bush’s and Cheney’s failed criminal adventure.

McCain gloated that Obama’s flip-flop proved he had no principles, only opportunism and

expediency, and that his much-touted soaring words meant precisely nothing. Democrats now had

their last chance to reflect: did they really want to give their nomination to a little-known newcomer

who had posed as a peace advocate, and had now unmasked as a warmonger and candidate for

Bush’s third term?

OBAMA’S BETRAYAL OF DEMOCRATS ON FISA, NAFTA,

CAMPAIGN FINANCE, THE DEATH PENALTY AND MUCH MORE

From the instant that he felt that the Democratic nomination was in his hands, Obama moved

relentlessly to the right in a breathtaking, stunning exhibition of cynicism and duplicity. Everything

he was supposed to stand for was thrown overboard, and Obama’s contempt for his own voters was

now center stage. Obama had promised to stop Bush’s assault on the Constitution and civil liberties,

and end illegal wiretapping. Now, Obama voted for the rotten compromise on the FISA bill,

including immunity for the telecoms – something he had vowed to filibuster. Obama had promised

clean government and less corruption, but he broke his promise by opting out of public financing

for his fall campaign, junking the cause of political reform he had claimed to champion. In Ohio and

Pennsylvania, Obama posed as a critic of free trade sellouts like NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO, but

he now told Fortune magazine that he was a great friend of free trade. Obama now openly

supported the death penalty, more of Bush’s faith-based boondoggles, and the “merit pay” assault

on teachers. He wanted to cut the corporate income tax, and opposed attempts to curb hand gun

violence. His current team of economic advisers guaranteed that he would eventually come out for

the partial privatization of Social Security camouflaged as “entitlement reform.” In short, Obama

intended to betray not just his own basic commitments, but the historical foundations of the

Democratic Party going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt. All that remained to complete this panorama

of betrayal was the choice of a Vice President: it was clear that Obama would reject Senator

Clinton, the greatest primary vote getter in the history of the Democratic Party, and the candidate

IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 367

who had won the popular vote in 2008. Instead, he was likely to choose a Republican – a

Bloomberg, a Hagel, or a Lugar, putting a Republican just a heartbeat away from the presidency.

SLIPPERY, FLIP-FLOPPING WARMONGER

OBAMA NOT A VIABLE CANDIDATE

If Obama imitated McCain on so many issues, the November election would come down to a

choice between two individuals, and a shifty, slippery, flip-flopping Obama will not fare well

against the war hero McCain and his carefully cultivated reputation as a straight shooter. McCain

would point out that voters cannot trust the flip-flopper Obama, and on that McCain would be right.

Fortunately, Obama has tipped his hand and dropped the mask too soon: there was no Democratic

nominee until the Roll Call of the States on August 27, 2008 in Denver.

PUMA DEMOCRATS MOBILIZE AGAINST OBAMA

During June 2008, the Democratic Party split. There emerged a coherent movement of

opposition to Obama and to the postmodern fascism he represented. These were the PUMA

Democrats, who first emerged on May 31 when Soros’ man Howard Dean had cut the Florida and

Michigan delegations in half on the basis of his Wall Street doubletalk. PUMAs were suddenly all

over cable television threatening to vote for McCain, but it was clear that what they really wanted

was to prod Senator Clinton to come back into the race. They said they were not calling for some

futile and self-defeating gesture, but rather pointing to the path that lead to victory in November.

The preconditions for a Clinton resurgence were an open convention not subject to the totalitarian

control of discredited and hated figures like Dean, Brazile, and the other machine bosses and hacks.

Then, there had to be the chance to vote through a formal Roll Call of the States, the centerpiece of

every American convention since time immemorial. But Dean and Brazile were already attempting

to cancel the Roll Call of the States, and orchestrate a convention of mindless Obama hoopla,

preventing even platform debate. Obama was demanding that he give his acceptance speech in the

Denver ball park, and was trying to schedule a speech before the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin on his

upcoming trip to Germany so he could posture as the new Kennedy.

175 PATRIOTS COULD STOP OBAMA ON THE FIRST BALLOT

IN AN OPEN CONVENTION

At this point, the fate of the United States appeared to depend on a minimum of 175 delegates to

the Denver convention willing to exercise their mature political judgment in the service of their

country, and turn away from Obama to support Senator Clinton. By most accounts, Obama had

about 2229.5 delegate votes, with 1766.5 pledged delegates and 463 superdelegates. Clinton had

1896.5 delegate votes, with 1639.5 pledged and 257 super delegates. Shift just 350 delegates from

Obama to Clinton, and Obama’s power grab would grind to a halt. After that, there would be the

opportunity to deliberate and choose a competent candidate. Lexington and Concord were started by

a few dozen farmers. Did the Democratic Party still have 175 patriots with the courage to take a

stand? By July 2008, the PUMAs held the key to the situation.

New motivation for these efforts came from the polls, which suggested at the end of July 2008

that Obama remained a likely loser for the Democrats in a contested election against McCain. A

USA Today/Gallup poll of likely voters showed McCain now ahead 49%-45%. Adam Nagourney of

the New York Times posed the question of “Where’s the Bounce” for Obama: ‘It is a question that

368 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

has hovered over Senator Barack Obama even as he has passed milestone after milestone in his race

for the White House: Why is he not doing better? …”They’ve known John McCain for years,” Bill

McInturff, a pollster for Mr. McCain, said of survey participants. “But people say in focus groups,

‘Who the heck is Barack Obama? Had you heard of him before six months ago?’ And he’s 46 years

old. He’s somebody nobody knows about.” … Mr. McCain is “running ahead of where he should be

based on the environment,” Mr. McInturff said. … Even Mr. Obama’s advisers say they are uneasy

about his difficulty so far in breaking the 50 percent barrier — a reminder, in poll after poll, that

there many Americans who are not yet ready to cast their lot with him, and may never be.’191

Nagourney was widely vituperated by Obama’s nutroots Myrmidons. Taylor Marsh, by now firmly

in the Obama camp, commented: ‘See, for those who haven’t been paying attention, American

voters don’t cheer for the champ or the smarty pants who seems full of himself, no matter how right,

no matter how good the policies he’s pushing. The do-gooder who can do no wrong. See Gore

2000, or Kerry.’192 There was still time for Democrats to dump Obama.

CHAPTER X: OBAMA: A LOOMING WORLD TRAGEDY

Brzezinski is “someone I have learned an immense amount from,” and “one of our most

outstanding scholars and thinkers”. – Obama, 2007.

“I’m not opposed to all wars.” – Obama, 2002

“Where did you get a public opinion that we should fully disarm and then, according to some

theoreticians, such as Brzezinski, divide our territory into three or four states? If there is such a

public opinion, I would disagree with it.” –Russian President Vladimir Putin, June 4, 2007.

My book Obama - The Postmodern Coup: The Making of a Manchurian Candidate grew out of

the realization on the weekend between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary that the

Obama bandwagon was not a normal political campaign, but rather an application of the methods of

the neo-imperialist and neo-liberal people power coup/color revolution (as we had seen them in

Ukraine, Georgia, Lebanon, etc.) brought home to the United States. It was a postmodern coup

under the cover of an election. A little digging showed that Obama’s handlers and controllers –

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Mark Brzezinski, Joseph Nye, Austan Goolsbee – represent the core of the

Trilateral Commission-Bilderberger group, closely associated with the Rockefeller interests. Some

of these people, especially Zbig and Paul Volcker, are the handlers who directed the catastrophic

Carter Trilateral presidency thirty years ago.

LAKE AND DAALDER:

THE CONCERT OF OLIGARCHIES TO RULE THE WORLD

Another Obama handler and controller is Anthony Lake, a veteran Democratic Party foreign

policy hack. Lake was Clinton’s first NSC Director starting back in 1993, and he did not last long.

One of Clinton’s very good initial ideas was to appoint a US Special Ambassador to do something

about ending the brutal British occupation of Northern Ireland. This had indeed been one of

Clinton’s popular promises on the campaign trail. Once they were in the White House, Lake told

Clinton that such an envoy would be seen by the lordly British as an affront, since their line was

that Northern Ireland was purely an internal affair of the United Kingdom. Therefore, Lake argued

successfully, the special US envoy was out of the question, and the whole idea had to be dropped.

Clinton caved in. In 1993, it was the ultra-imperialist British who were doing the human rights

violations, so any intervention was unthinkable. Today, Brzezinski & Co. are eager to launch a

whole series of interventions and invasions under left cover, human rights cover, and humanitarian

cover against targets like Sudan, Burma, and China, including via Tibet. Under these conditions,

Lake the Snake, as he was known by his opponents in the Clinton NSC, has become a true

powerhouse of fervor for humanitarian interventions, utterly unlike the cautious fellow we saw back

in 1993.

A May 19, 2008 op-ed by Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl touted the

efforts of Obama handlers Anthony Lake and Ivo Daalder to establish a “Concert of Democracies,”

to sanction military invasions of countries in Africa and Asia, generally using left, human rights

cover. The “Concert of Democracies” hearkens back to the Castelreagh-Canning system of British

imperial domination of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars. At that time, any state which threw off

the oppressive yoke of the Quadruple Alliance could become the target of counter-revolutionary

intervention by the British and their continental junior partners, headed by Prince Metternich of the

Austrian Empire. Revolutionary states were deemed rogue states, in today’s parlance, and they were

370 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

considered fair game for outside invasion. Such a system was naturally unworkable and dissolved in

revolutionary chaos in 1848 – a chaos fomented by the British themselves in many cases. A similar

idea was put forward in 1938 under the rubric of the “League of Democracies” as advocated by the

US Anglophile financier Clarence Streit, who was Felix Rohatyn’s father in law. There was also the

Community of Democracies, a gaggle of US-UK satellites created under Clinton by Madeline

Albright and Morton Halperin, Soros’ man in Washington. But now, in 2008, the long-standing

Anglo-American world domination was reaching the end of the line. Hence the desperation of

crackpot plans like those embraced by Lake the Snake. Experience shows that, if Obama’s handlers

demand it, Barky will do it sooner or later.

Lake and his sidekick Ivo Daalder, also an Obama controller, have been working closely of late

with the head of the neocon wing of the US ruling class, George P. Shultz, the man who picked

Bush, picked Cheney, picked the neocon Vulcans, and then went on to pick Arnold Schwarzenegger

to be Governor of California. The convergence between the center-left imperialists like Lake and

the neocons like Shultz is the practical content of the “bi-partisanship” that Obama is always

babbling about. This convergence is based on the very sober estimate that the Anglo-American

empire is in a heap of trouble, and that further open divisions in the ruling class could well open the

way to a popular movement for real reform. Therefore, the two wings of the ruling class, the Shultz-

Rupert Murdoch-Warren Buffet neocons and the James Baker-Robert Rubin-Soros-Rohatyn wing

have an urgent need to come together, to crush domestic opposition, and finally to take down the

real centers of opposition, Moscow and Beijing.

THE SLAUGHTER PLAN

Daalder and Lake serve as honorary co-chairs of the Princeton Project on National Security,

which came out, in the fall of 2006, for an Anglo-American-led Concert of Democracies to carry

out preventive and preemptive wars of regime change around the world, outside the United Nations

Charter.193 Daalder, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, has collaborated top neocon Robert Kagan

(an informal advisor to John McCain) to promote the aggressive interventionism inherent in this

lunatic plan for a Concert of Democracies. The Princeton Project on National Security proposal for

a Concert of Democracies was included in the project’s final report by G. John Ikenberry and

Woodrow Wilson School Anne-Marie Slaughter (nomen est omen, her name is her program), who is

billed as a likely recipient of a plum job in a future Obama regime. (Imagine the headlines: Obama

Proposes New World Order Based on Slaughter Plan!”) The Slaughter Plan may have confidential

protocols that represent the detailed program for an Obama regime, in the same way that the 1980s

Project of the Council on Foreign Relations represented the script for the Carter administration.194

THE “ROGUE BLOC” – RUSSIA AND CHINA

The Concert of Democracies scheme was discussed by Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, who

argued in an article in The American Interest that it could encompass up to 60 nations, including 28

of the 30 largest economies. Bush the elder and Bush the younger carried out their imperialist

adventures using what they called coalitions of the willing – ad hoc groups of states which could be

cajoled, bribed, threatened, or coerced into joining in, usually with token contingents, on the side of

the US-UK imperialist enforcers. These coalitions of the willing were often mocked as the

coalitions of the shilling, since the majority were indeed shills for the Anglo-Americans. Daalder

and Lake can see that they will never ram their adventurous plans through the United Nations,

where the Shanghai Cooperation Organization powers – Russia and China – are ready to bar their

X: Obama: A Looming World Tragedy 371

way with crossed vetoes. At the same time, the old neocon idea of the US, UK, and Israel at war

with the rest of the world until the end of time simply will not work, because these powers are far

too defeated, discredited, isolated, and bankrupt. Accordingly, the new idea is to institutionalize the

coalition of the willing in permanent form, splitting the world into a US-UK “democratic” bloc,

which will face off against a “rogue” bloc centered on Russia and China. The precondition to

forming this bloc would be an unprecedented level of gullibility and servility on the part of Europe,

Japan, and other parts of the planet. Lake, a kind of mini-Brzezinski, has motivated this new version

of the Holy Alliance as follows: “One thing is clear,” he wrote in the American Interest. “Crises in

Iran, North Korea, Iraq and Darfur, not to mention the pressing need for more efficient

peacekeeping operations, the rising temperatures of our seas and multiple other transnational

threats, demonstrate not only the limits of American unilateral power but also the inability of

international institutions designed in the middle of the 20th century to cope with the problems of the

21st.” As Jackson Diehl comments, “… a post-Cold War and post-George Bush United States will

not have the capacity or the legitimacy to unilaterally take on global crises. But working through the

United Nations, as Bush himself tried to do for the past several years, is more often than not a recipe

for paralysis, because of the resistance of non-democratic states. Take the past few months: China,

helped by Russia, has stopped the Security Council from discussing a humanitarian intervention to

rescue the 1.5 million Burmese endangered by the criminal neglect of their government following a

cyclone. Strong sanctions against Iran for its refusal to freeze its nuclear program have been

blocked by Russia. An attempted U.N. intervention in Darfur is failing, largely because of Chinese

and Russian refusal to authorize stronger measures against the government of Sudan. Whether

Obama or McCain, the next president will take office knowing that he inherits the messes in Darfur,

Burma and Iran and also that new crises will erupt during his term. If he is unable to respond — if

he, like Bush, ends up watching as tens or hundreds of thousands of people die in a weak or failed

state while China and Russia block U.N. action — he will be harshly judged. That’s why McCain

has smartly begun to talk about his League of Democracies and promised early action to create it. If

Obama is wise, he will make Daalder’s Concert of Democracies part of his own campaign.”

(Jackson Diehl, “A ‘League’ by Other Names,” Washington Post, May 19, 2008) And if Brzezinski

finds this institutional camouflage useful for his apocalyptic confrontation with Russia, China, and

their allies, we can be very sure that puppet Obama will comply.

Another prominent foreign policy adviser of the Obama campaign was the abrasive Susan Rice,

who had been the Assistant Secretary of State for Africa during the Clinton Administration. Before

she drank the Kool-Aid for Obama, Taylor Marsh recalled that ‘along with [Anthony] Lake, Dr.

Susan Rice is one of the people responsible for the disastrous policy towards Rwanda in the 1990s,

for which Bill Clinton deservedly took so much heat and eventually apologized. As for Power, she

obviously is simply unprofessional.’ Rice attracted attention for her clumsy gaffe during the

controversy about Clinton’s Texas ad suggesting that Obama was not prepared to react to a 3 a.m.

telephone call to the White House announcing a strategic emergency. Rice countered that charge by

arguing in effect that both candidates were equally unqualified: “Clinton hasn’t had to answer the

phone at 3 o’clock in the morning and yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready. They’re

both not ready to have that 3 a.m. phone call.” This performance caused Rice to be nominated by a

least one blog for the dubious honor of being named the ‘worst foreign-policy spokesperson ever.”

(March 6, 2008)

372 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

OBAMA THE APPEASER: FOR ONCE, BUSH WAS RIGHT

In late May, President George Bush gave an address to the Israeli Knesset on the occasion of the

60th anniversary of Israel’s independence. We must leave aside the appalling historical mockery of

Bush appearing in that place, given that his grandfather Prescott Bush had been one of the principal

backers and financiers of the Nazi party and must thus be counted as one of the indispensable

supporters of Hitler’s seizure of power in January 1933. Those who wish to dig deeper into this

background are invited to consult my book, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (1992),

where the full story of Prescott Bush’s support for National Socialism is detailed. In the course of

his Knesset address, Bush remarked:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some

ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this

foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator

declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We

have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been

repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080515-1.html)

Obama’ handlers, eager to pick a fight with Bush, chose to interpret this remark as aimed

specifically against them — hardly a clever move given the obvious liabilities of a young whelp of a

senator who notoriously would not know the difference between a rocket propelled grenade and a

bong. Even picking a quarrel with Bush was something that Obama had to do in a cowardly and

tentative way, initiating the polemics with a carefully worded written statement which accused Bush

of launching a “false attack” on the Perfect Master. In the course of several polemical exchanges

with Senator McCain, Obama prevaricated, muddied the waters, and shifted his own position

several times on this issue.

Apart from these verbal pyrotechnics, it must be recognized that Bush for once was quite

correct, although for reasons which he himself could never have fathomed. The foreign policy

which Brzezinski and Obama intend to carry out in regard to countries like Syria and Iran is indeed

a carbon copy of the so-called appeasement policy followed by British Prime Minister Sir Neville

Chamberlain, most notably at the Munich conference of September 1938, where much of

Czechoslovakia was awarded to Hitler without any direct consultation of the government in Prague.

THE BRITISH APPEASEMENT POLICY

MEANT ACTIVE SUPPORT FOR HITLER

In order to get to the heart of the matter we need to get rid of the term appeasement which is a

very weak euphemism invented by British historians to put their own countries leaders in a

somewhat better light. The essence of what is called appeasement was a policy of active support for

Hitler and the national Socialist regime on the part of the Baldwin and Chamberlain governments of

Britain during the 1930s. This support was comprehensive, and included financial assistance to the

Nazis by the Bank of England under Lord Montague Norman, the Anglo German naval agreement

of 1935, which scrapped the arms limitations imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles and

gave German rearmament the official British stamp of approval, plus British approval of the

remilitarization of the Rhineland, support for the unification of Germany with Austria, active

support for Hitler’s grab of Czechoslovakia, and a de facto hands-off policy when it came to Nazi

aggression against Poland. The only condition suggested by the British for all this support was this

X: Obama: A Looming World Tragedy 373

that Hitler should direct his aggressive intentions eastward in the direction of the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics. The essence of this British policy was to play Hitler against Stalin by

encouraging Hitler to go east, and to hope to get rid of both of them that way, thereby guaranteeing

the British Empire in another century or more of world domination. There was a parallel British

policy of appeasement towards Japan, with the goal of embroiling Japan and the United States in the

Pacific war for the greater glory of London. The British aristocracy was hysterically convinced that

Hitler was a one-way gun who could only fire into the sunrise, never into the sunset. Naturally, this

policy was sheer lunacy, and was destined to blow up in the faces of the British sooner rather than

later. The center of this policy was notoriously the Astor family and their social circles, known as

the Cliveden Set, which was the immediate social milieu inhabited by Sir Neville Chamberlain.

Cliveden was a country house frequented on weekends not only by the Prime Minister, but also by

Lord Astor and Lady Astor’s guests, who included Lord Lothian, Lord Brand, Lord Halifax, the

future foreign Secretary, and many more.195 This is the faction referred to by Carroll Quigley as the

Milner group, and they were closely allied to other aristocrats like the Duke of Hamilton, the

nobleman whom Rudolf Hess was seeking to visit when he parachuted into Britain a few weeks

before the Nazi attack on the Soviets.

All of this is amply documented for those willing to take a look. Carroll Quigley of Georgetown,

Bill Clinton’s history professor, wrote that the Astor group in question …was known in those days

as the Round Table Group, and later came to be called, somewhat inaccurately, the Cliveden Set,

after the country estate of Lord and Lady Astor. It included Lord Milner, Leopold Amery, and

Edward Grigg (Lord Altrincham), as well as Lord Lothian, Smuts, Lord Astor, Lord Brand (brother

in law of Lady Astor and managing director of Lazard Brothers, the international bankers), Lionel

Curtis, Geoffrey Dawson (editor of The Times), and their associates. The group wielded great

influence because it controlled the Rhodes Trust, the Beit Trust, The Times of London, The

Observer,. the influential and highly anonymous quarterly review known as The Round Table

(founded in 1910 with money supplied by Sir Abe Bailey and the Rhodes Trust, and with Lothian as

editor), and it dominated the Royal Institute of International Affairs, called ‘Chatham House” (of

which Sir Abe Bailey and the Astors were the chief financial supporters, while Lionel Curtis was

the actual founder), the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and All Souls College, Oxford.”196

The Daily Express published a picture of Lady Astor’s Cliveden estate under the headline “Mr.

Chamberlain spent the week-end here — and why.” The article began ominously by noting that

“France has her ‘Cagoulards,’ the hooded men who are supposed to be plotting a Fascist uprising

there. And England has her ‘Cliveden Set,’ who are supposed to be plotting a Fascist regime here.

Brrrrr!” wrote the Daily Express, which went on to dismiss the whole story as “a first-rate bogey.”

(Daily Express, March 28, 1938)

Cockburn loved to mock the Cliveden group as the “cagloulords” — Astor, Astor, Lothian,

Londonderry, Brand, and Halifax. Cockburn’s original thesis was that the Astor group viewed

Hitler as a “one-way gun” — one which, they hoped, would only fire east towards Moscow. The

infamy of Cliveden soon reached the United States. Hedley Donovan informed the readers of the

Washington Post, under the headline “Empire’s New Leaders Friendly to Fascism,” that “the

energetic Lady Astor occupies a position of great influence in Britain’s councils.” Donovan told his

readers to prepare to read soon in their morning newspapers a news item like the following: “The

British government has given its blessing to Hitler’s impending annexation of German-speaking

Czechoslovakia, it was learned here from a source close to Cliveden.” (Washington Post, April 3,

1938) The Minneapolis Journal noted that “the Tory press have been shouting for years to let Hitler

have his own way for central Europe and Russia. (April 3, 1938) The Philadelphia Record

374 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

described the Cliveden set as having been in existence in its current form for about 20 months, with

a policy including an Anglo-German, bargain, British recognition of Franco’s Spain, the final

dismantling of the collective security features of the League of Nations, and a round of new loans to

Germany from bankers — perhaps Brand — who are themselves Cliveden habitués. “The prodictator

attitude of this clique,” this article pointed out, “is the real reason that Prime Minister

Neville Chamberlain refuses to tell Parliament and the world at what point England will fight.”

(Philadelphia Record, April 4, 1938) The New York Times article on Cliveden was headlined,

“Friends of Hitler Strong in Britain,” and noted that Chamberlain, more at ease with the pro-

German element, had spent Easter with Lord Londonderry, an outspoken pro-German and an

important official of the Conservative Party. (The wealthy elitist Lord Londonderry was about to

publish his book Ourselves and Germany, a plea for Anglo-German rapprochement.). The author,

Ferdinand Kuhn Jr., noted “British aristocracy by its very nature is more hostile to communism than

to fascism. When men like Londonderry or Viscount Rothermere or Lord Astor have political

nightmares the ogre of their imagination is Russia, not Germany. Menace to their wealth, their

social position, as they see, it, is the creed of communism, and, in their minds, whatever endangers

themselves endangers England.” But what of the demagogue Hitler? Kuhn felt that “it is not

difficult to see why so many British aristocrats today sympathize with Hitler. They may not approve

particularly of his persecution of Catholics or Jews, but they do regard him as a St. George who

killed the dragon of communism in Germany and prevented Russia from spreading her creed to

Western Europe.” (New York Times, April 17, 1938)

Lord Halifax of the Cliveden set met with Hitler, and offered cooperation against the USSR.

According to a German Foreign Ministry memo on the Hitler-Halifax talks later published by the

Soviets (although denied by the British), Halifax stated that Britain regarded Hitler as the chief

bulwark against communism in Europe. He hinted that the UK was seeking a four-power

combination of Britain, France, Germany, and Italy against Moscow. The Germans further

understood from Halifax that Britain was ready to sacrifice Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland to

the German sphere of influence if this could be done without war into which the Conservative

Cabinet might become embroiled. 197The British Communist house organ, the Daily Worker,

revealed the guest book for this meeting of “the pro-Fascist clique that directs the policy of the

Chamberlain government,” naming the Astors, Lothian, Tom Jones, Neville Chamberlain, Sir

Thomas Inskip, Cadogan, Lady Wilson, and Mrs. Tate, the MP from Frome. The Daily Worker was

especially intrigued by the presence of Lady Ravensdale, the sister-in-law of Sir Oswald Mosely of

the British Union of Fascists. The communist organ alleged that Lady Ravensdale’s presence had

been reported by early editions of Monday’s Evening Standard, but suppressed in later editions. The

Daily Worker further alleged that Cliveden was planning peace-time conscription or forced labor,

citing Lord Lothian’s comments to The Times of March 14 in favor of “universal national service.”

(Daily Worker, March 30, 1938)’198 Compare this to Obama’s extremely extensive program of

national service discussed above. The British historian A.J.P. Taylor wrote obliquely about the

Munich sellout of September 1938, where Czechoslovakia was sacrificed to the British

appeasement policy: ‘The settlement at Munich was a triumph for British policy, which had worked

precisely to this end; not a triumph for Hitler, who had started with no such clear intention. Nor was

it merely a triumph for selfish or cynical British statesmen, indifferent to the fate of far-off peoples

or calculating that Hitler might be launched into war against Soviet Russia.199

But one year after Munich came the Molotov-Ribbentrop or Hitler-Stalin Pact, which meant that

the British policy had blown up in the faces of Lady Astor and her crew. Hitler now had a free hand

to turn west to crush France and the Low Countries, leading to the British debacle at Dunkirk. This

X: Obama: A Looming World Tragedy 375

event also marks the great watershed in Brzezinski’s personal life, since with the occupation of

Poland by the Nazis and the Soviets his diplomat father, who had been posted to Canada, no longer

had a country to represent. The Brzezinski family gravitated into the social world of the eastern

European puppet governments in exile set up by the British. It is the twisted mentality of these

revanchist aristocratic and British agent circles which lives on in Zbigniew and his clan, including

Mark, Ian, Mika, and Matthew Brzezinski today, and which fuels their fanatical hatred of Russia.

Josef Korbel, the father of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and the mentor of Condi

Rice, belonged to these same anti-Russian circles. For various reasons, Brzezinski blames these

events on Stalin, although he must have some idea of the grave responsibility of the Astor-

Chamberlain group.

The Italian historian Gaetano Salvemini concluded that the reverses suffered later on by the

British ‘were the logical consequences of a basic assumption, i.e. that Hitler, after swallowing

Austria and Czechoslovakia, would go and meet his doom in Eastern Europe. If one ignores that

assumption, British foreign policy after 1934 becomes a succession of absurd muddles. If one bears

it in mind, the policies of the British Tories become clear and consistent.’ Salvemini offered this

verdict on the bungling geopoliticians of the British leadership: “…on the Conservative

Government of Britain falls the responsibility of giving Hitler rope with the idea that he would hang

himself. By throwing Central Europe piecemeal to the wolves they thought they were heading Hitler

off eastwards to meet his doom in Russia: two birds killed with one stone.200 The American

historian Frederick Schumann concurred, pointing to the British desire to wipe out the Soviet

leadership, which resembles the anti-Russian and anti-Chinese plans of the Brzezinski group: “The

destruction of the Soviet counter-elite was a constant object of the [British] oligarchy after

1917…The USSR must be isolated. The ties between France and her eastern allies must be broken.

France must be immobilized, for any French involvement in the clash to come would, for

geographical reasons, entail British involvement — which was precisely what was to be avoided.

The immobilization of France required the strengthening of Italy and Germany to a point at which

Paris could not challenge them. Hence remilitarization of the Rhineland, threats to French

communications in the Mediterranean, and Fascist victory in Spain were all useful devices to

supplement British efforts to keep France neutral….In the end the Fascist Triplice [Germany, Italy,

and Spain] must attack the USSR….This program could never be openly acknowledged by Tory

officialdom because the masses whom the oligarchy ruled (and even some members of the

oligarchy itself) had unfortunately been conditioned to respond favorably to such shibboleths as

‘indivisible peace,’ collective security,’ and “League of Nations.’201 More recent leftist historians

have come to a similar conclusion: ‘The alternative argument presented here is that those in the

[British] ruling group before May 10, 1940 were bloody-minded protectors of privilege whose

fixation with destroying communists and communism led them to make common cause with

fascists. They were not honest, idiotic patriots; they were liars and traitors who would sacrifice

human lives in their defense of property and privilege….Blame for the tragedy of World War II,

including the Holocaust, must rest partly with Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax,

and their close associates, who, far from being naïve appeasers anxious to avoid wars in Europe,

were visceral anti-communists who single-mindedly pursued an alliance with Hitler.’202 Future

historians writing from the rubble of a post-World War III world will doubtless issue some similar

indictment of Brzezinski and company for his contorted, contradictory, crackpot scheme to isolate

China, and then play China (and Iran) against Russia and get rid of all of them that way, procuring

another century of US-UK world domination.

376 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

BRZEZINSKI’S WORLD STRATEGY TO SAVE THE EMPIRE

The mental life of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the obsessive revanchist and anti-Russian fanatic who

runs so many aspects of the Obama campaign, seems frozen in the amber of 1939. That was the

year when this British plan was blown up by the signing of the Hitler Stalin pact, leading to the

destruction of Poland and to the Brzezinski family’s being marooned in Canada, thus visiting

Zbigniew on the United States a few years later. Zbigniew today is determined to use an Obama

regime to create a worldwide geopolitical constellation capable of crushing Russia, China, and any

other states supporting the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the main pole of resistance to

Anglo-American imperialism in today’s world. For this purpose, Zbigniew has been busily

provoking crises in Eastern Europe, designed to pit the European Union against Moscow. These

include the independence of the Serbian province of Kosovo, under the control of an organization

known as the KLA, notorious for its involvment in gun running, drug running, terrorism, and slave

trading. The independence of Kosovo was designed principally as an affront and provocation to

Moscow, and this is also true of Brzezinski’s plan for a Polish missile crisis to be occasioned by the

installation of alleged US anti-ballistic missiles on the territory of Poland. Many other provocations

against Moscow are in the offing but this is only the beginning.

The first main task assigned to Obama is to kick the Chinese out of Africa, where the Chinese

have been assiduously courting African states with offers of economic cooperation deals based on

parity and equality of economic advantage. These deals have excited the rage of the International

Monetary Fund and the World Bank, whose monopoly has thus been broken; but for Brzezinski the

stakes are much higher. Brzezinski’s design is to deprive the Chinese of all the oil, natural gas,

strategic minerals, and strategic raw materials which they are presently purchasing in Africa. The

chosen method is the destabilization and destruction of most African states as a means to forcing the

Chinese out. Much of this will be done under the new US African command or Africom, which is

about to be created in Ethiopia. Under the Brzezinski policy, Africa will become increasingly a

battleground between China and the United States and the result is likely to be a continent in

flames, with the levels of genocide against the sub-Saharan populations reaching unprecedented

levels. As part of this design the CIA’s gaggle of terrorist patsies known as Al Qaeda has surfaced

in Algeria (one of the largest oil producers), Tunisia, and Morocco. The Mugabe government in

Zimbabwe is being massively destabilized. Obamas own Luo tribe has become a vehicle for the

destabilization of Kenya, previously one of the most stable African states, with the option of

exporting civil war to other nearby countries where the Luo are also found. Obama’s Luo cousin,

the demagogue Omega, is implicated in terrorism and ethnic cleansing, but is supported by the State

Department anyway. The three largest sub-Saharan African states, Sudan, Nigeria, and South

Africa, are all targeted for comprehensive destabilization and Balkanization of their territory into

impotent, squabbling petty states incapable of resisting the demands of any multinational oil

company. The US, the British, and the Israelis have all been destabilizing Sudan for decades, but

today the resulting humanitarian crisis in Darfur province is used by London and Washington as a

possible pretext for humanitarian invasion. Naturally, the real goal of such an attack on Sudan

would have nothing to do with the situation of Darfur province, and everything to do with cutting

off the 7% of China’s oil which now comes from Sudan. Left-wing CIA assets are already

spreading the line that Chinese economic development in Sudan is committing “ethnocide” by

destroying the alleged culture of impoverished villages, which are yearning for a way out of the

inferno of the world oil crisis and the world food crisis. Indeed, an attack on Sudan unleashed by

Obama would immediately enjoy the active support of many elements of today’s so-called peace

movement.

X: Obama: A Looming World Tragedy 377

SHANGHAI COOPERATION ORGANIZATION TARGETED

Brzezinski’s plan to strip China of all of her allies and sources for oil, minerals, and strategic

raw materials is not limited to Africa but is to be carried out worldwide. Another country targeted

using the same logic is Burma, whose government is allied with Beijing. Gene Sharp and the Albert

Einstein Institute would like to use Burma as a staging ground for future destabilization attempts

against mainland China itself, using the abundant stocks of fanatical Buddhist monks as cannon

fodder. Indeed, this is what they are already doing in Tibet, where the insurrection against Chinese

rule has been fomented by the left CIA and its foundations grouped around the national endowment

for democracy. Venezuela is another target because it might make a deal with China. The neocon

response is to bomb or invade Venezuela, but Brzezinski knows that the US is much too weak,

isolated, and bankrupt to try that. He prefers to play Colombia against Venezuela, exploiting

President Chavez’s ill-advised support for the FARC rebels, the darlings of Richard Grasso, the

former head of the New York Stock Exchange. By playing Colombia against Venezuela, both can

be destroyed at scant cost to the US, and the oil to China effectively cut off.

Once China had been completely isolated and stripped of allies and economic partners, and also

deprived of any foreign sources of oil, vital raw materials, and other strategic commodities, the final

stage of Brzezinski’s program would go into action. This final stage would be accompanied by

vigorous attempts to weaken and destabilize the government in Beijing, attempts which are slated to

begin in the summer of 2008 under the cover of the Summer Olympic Games. Brzezinski’s

endgame would be something resembling a de facto trade blockade of China, with Brzezinski

prodding the Chinese to solve their oil shortage by invading Russia and eastern Siberia to seize the

oil wells and mines which are located there in a country very sparsely populated by Russians. In

other words, the goal of all of Obama’s edifying and mellifluous peace rhetoric is nothing less than

a cynical and deliberate unleashing of the Third World war, most likely fought out with

thermonuclear weapons in the vast spaces of Siberia and Mongolia. Brzezinski imagines that by

playing China against Russia in this way, he will be able to secure another century or more of Anglo

American imperial world domination. This is the familiar refrain we already heard from Sir Neville

Chamberlain, and here again the result will be the same: the plan is destined to blow up in

Brzezinski’s face, not least because the Russian and Chinese elites are already thoroughly informed

of every particular, and have said so in the Russian case.

BRZEZINSKI WANTS TO PLAY IRAN AGAINST RUSSIA

So how does the question of appeasing Iran (and/or Syria) fit into the Brzezinski plan of which

Obama is the steward? The answer has been blatantly evident since the final report of the Baker

Hamilton Iraq study group was delivered at the end of 2006. That is the organism that

recommended that the US urgently negotiate with Iran and Syria, lifting the absurd diplomatic

embargo imposed by the fanatical neocons of the Bush regime. As James Baker openly and

cynically pointed out at the time, he had successfully recruited Syria to be a member of the US-led

coalition of the willing against Iraq in the first Gulf War of 1991. Baker’s message was clear

enough: I got you Syria then, and I could get you Syria now if given half a chance. Iran, by

implication, was also susceptible to being “gotten.” But gotten for what? Let us imagine a

hypothetical conversation between President Achmadinejad of Iran and the US team of Brzezinski

and Obama. The reader must imagine that Obama is seated on Brzezinski’s lap in the guise of the

ventriloquist’s dummy in the posture made famous by such past practitioners as Edgar Bergen and

Charlie McCarthy, or Paul Winchell and Jerry Mahoney. It is therefore Brzezinski who is speaking,

378 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

even though the words seemed to come out of Obama’ mouth. The reader must also imagine a tone

of voice used to convey the American offer which is reminiscent of Jack Nicholson as the US

president negotiating with the Martian leader in the cinema classic, Mars Attacks.

Obama/Brzezinski would speak to the Iranians thus: “Why should we be enemies and

adversaries? Why can’t we be friends and cooperate and work together? Between the two of us,

we could totally dominate the entire Middle East, and nobody could do anything here without our

permission — not the Russians, not the Chinese, not the Indians, not the Pakistanis, not the

Egyptians. Just think of it: the United States and Iran working together! Imagine the potential!

What do we need to do for you to make it possible? What do we need to give you? Just for openers,

we can free up those frozen assets that we have been holding in our banks for the past 30 years —

they now add up to hundreds of billions of dollars. We need to have comprehensive diplomatic

relations, a cultural exchange program, maybe a mutual nonaggression pact if that is what you

would like. Of course we’d take you off that silly old terrorist list! Of course we can make sure that

Hezbollah gets what they are entitled to in Lebanon! Of course we can make a whole series of

other concessions to your various friends and proxies! But let’s get to the really big issues. You

want to have nuclear weapons. We can’t approve that in public but we are willing to guarantee you

right here and right now that we will give you a wink and a nod. If you run into problems along the

way, we can help you solve your bottlenecks with the right kind of technology when you need it.

Come to think of it, we could deliver a small stock of bombs if that is what you would like. Just like

Iran-contra, but better! We have a new missile that we call the Brzezinski special — you fire it off

from anywhere in the world and it flies straight to Moscow! We’d be glad to give you some of those

right now! You just have to remember that your hereditary enemy has never been the Americans,

but the Russians! Think how badly they behaved when they occupied the northern part of your

country during World War II — that was really messy! We’ve never done anything like that, and we

don’t want to! We just want to be friends and make sure that you’re strong enough to stand up

against the real threats and all of those come from Moscow. By the way Mr. President, we see that

your popularity has been a little anemic lately. But surely you know that the biggest resentment

harbored by the Iranian people is their resentment against the Russians. Your Iranians hate those

Russians much more than they hate the US and the British! So any time you pick a quarrel with

Moscow you can count on pleasing a big majority of your own base! And we can help you to do it.

Think of how bad those Russians treated you lately on that Bushehr reactor. They charged you too

much in the first place, and then they withheld the parts, blackmailed you, and all the rest — a real

humiliation! We would certainly never do that! So what else would you need? How about a nice

new naval fleet in the Caspian Sea so you can sail right up to the ports of southern Russia and spit

in their eye! With nuclear missiles, of course! Think of all the dandy incidents you could stage that

way, poking at that Russian bear with your big Iranian pitchfork! That way you can stop them from

stealing your Caspian oil! And if they ever fight back, don’t worry — we’ll be here to back you up!

And then there are those Chinese! Why do you want to sell so much oil to them? Pretty soon you’ll

be selling them so much that they will have you in their pocket, and you wouldn’t want that, would

you? You’re better off dealing with us, even if it is for dollars. We want you to know that we are

honest in the worst way!”

Thus the siren song of Brzezinski, intent on playing the Islamic fundamentalists of Iran against

the Russians in the same way that he once played the Islamic fundamentalists of Afghanistan

against the Soviet Union, destroying the latter and its entire world system of alliances. The line

towards Syria would be similar, and would sound something like this: “We are natural allies! We

need to be friends! All we need to do is to remove a few little irritants and everything will be hunkyX:

Obama: A Looming World Tragedy 379

dory! Take for example that nasty little naval base that the Russians have on your Mediterranean

coast in that little place called Tartus. All you need to do is take them out of there! Then not paying

you anything like what that place is worth! Give us that base and we’ll pay you triple what the

Russians are giving you! We can even get the Israelis to give you back the Golan heights if you’re

willing to play ball with us! All you need to do is recognize that the Russians have always been the

problem and always will be, and the quicker we get them out of the Middle East completely, the

better off everybody will be! The same thing goes for those damn Chinese! And look how the North

Koreans bungled everything they promised to do for you! Let’s go back to those good old days

when Henry Kissinger could say, ‘God may punish me for it, but I still have a soft spot in my heart

for Hafez Assad.’”

ISRAEL DEMOTED: FROM STRATEGIC HUB TO EXPENDABLE ASSET

Much of this is anything but fanciful, and has already been approximated by Trilateral

Commission spokesmen in public statements. At about this time, former President Jimmy Carter,

Obama’s predecessor on the path of Trilateral puppetry, revealed that in his opinion the Israelis had

about 150 nuclear weapons. Everyone had long known that the Israelis had three times as many as

this, but Carter went on to ask: “What happens if, in three years time, Iran has a nuclear weapon,”

Mr Carter asked. “I’m not sure that is going to happen, but if it does, what do we do? They are

rational people like all of us in this room. Do they want to commit suicide? I would guess not. So

what we have to do is talk with them now and say to them we want to be their friends. The United

States must let Iran know that we want to give them fuel and everything they need for a nonmilitary

nuclear programme. Twenty-five years ago we cut off trading with Iran. We’ve got to

resume trading to show Iran we are friends.” (Independent, May 26, 2008) Again, quite independent

of how much of the strategy Carter personally understands, Brzezinski’s goal is not a peaceful

settlement of the Middle East, but rather the mobilization of Middle East countries against Russia

and China in the framework of the apocalyptic global showdown which he is planning to execute

under the aegis of an Obama presidency.

Soon after the appeasement flap began, Brzezinski accused members of the American Jewish

establishment of “McCarthyism” in their attitude towards critics of Israel. He called the pro-Israel

lobby “too powerful” and accused American supporters of Israel of being too ready to use the slur

of “anti-Semitism” against critics of Israel. He stated that AIPAC, the American-Israel Public

Affairs Committee has “consistently opposed a two-state solution and a lot of members of Congress

have been intimidated and I don’t think that is healthy.” Brzezinski went on to say: “It’s not unique

to the Jewish community — but there is a McCarthyite tendency among some people in the Jewish

community. They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonizing. They very

promptly wheel out anti-Semitism. There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any

serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel.” Reports noted that

Obama has paid tribute to the aging Polish revanchist as “someone I have learned an immense

amount from”, and “one of our most outstanding scholars and thinkers”. Alan Dershowitz of

Harvard Law School and others had already called on Obama to dump Brzezinski as a campaign

adviser, although of course in reality Zbig had hired Barky, and not the other way around. Zbig had

earlier antagonized the Israeli lobby through his support for the work of Stephen Walt and John

Mearsheimer. This entire incident came shortly after the Obama campaign had dumped Robert

Malley and Samantha Power, two thuggish foreign policy operatives with a history of clashing with

the Israeli regime. Obama campaign co-chairman and top military adviser Merrill “Bomb Now, Die

Later” McPeak complained about the influence of American Jews in the foreign policy debate,

380 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

commenting that the problem was not centered in the State Department or the White House, but

rather among the Jewish voters of “New York City. Miami. We have a large vote — vote, here in

favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.” McPeak also claims that a combination of

Jews and Christian Zionists are manipulating U.S. policy in Iraq in dangerous and radical ways:

“Let’s say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely

American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq. Let’s say you

are a born-again Christian and you think that Armageddon and the rapture are about to happen any

minute and what you want to do is retrace steps you think are laid out in Revelations, then it makes

sense. So there are a number of scenarios here that could lead you in this direction. This is

radical....” (Ed Lasky, ‘Obama Advisor Accuses Jews of “McCarthyism,” American Thinker.’)

Maybe, but then again, Brzezinski is crazier than any neocon.

Many of the criticisms leveled by the Obama camp against the Israelis and their US supporters

are unquestionably true, but this does not make them any less opportunistic. The main objection

against Israeli right-wing extremists of the Netanyahu type is that they are implacably opposed to a

general peace settlement for the Middle East, and in this they agree completely with Brzezinski and

Obama, who want to use the Middle East as a staging area for confrontation and possible war with

Russia and China. The Israelis have acquired quite a few enemies for themselves by their brutal

and arrogant behavior during the Bush regime era, but it is always a mistake to let one’s outlook be

distorted by hatred, and one senses that much of the anti-Israeli rhetoric is of this type. It helps to

have some understanding for the subjective predicament of the Israelis themselves. Under Bush,

Israel was the unquestioned strategic center of the world, with many exertions of the United States

devoted to eliminating present adversaries and future challenges for the Israeli regime. With

Brzezinski, by contrast, the Israelis are finding themselves radically demoted from the status of

linchpin of the world to that of just another expendable pawn in the Polish revanchist’s apocalyptic

confrontation with Moscow and Beijing. In this, the Israelis are far from alone: Europe, Africa, the

Middle East as a whole, and the United States itself are all seen by Brzezinski as expendable pawns

in this apocalyptic struggle with the two capitals of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. It is

simply a fact that the Iran which Brzezinski is intent on building up and then launching against

Moscow may well surprise the old revanchist by striking out in completely unexpected directions,

and Israel could very well be one of them. The Israelis therefore have every right to object

vehemently to the new US imperialist line that takes so little account of their survival. Even worse,

it is clear that Brzezinski regards Israel, with its 500 to 600 nuclear weapons, and relevant delivery

systems, as a possible trump card to be played against the Russians. Naturally, in such a

confrontation Israel’s lack of geographic depths when measured against the immensity of the

Eurasian superpower could well lead to the annihilation of the Israelis. All in all, the new

hegemony of Brzezinski over US foreign policy spells nothing but trouble for the Israelis and for

the rest of the Middle East.

We must however add that the Israelis need to steer clear of leaders like Netanyahu, and rather

embrace the outlines of the Yossi Beilin -Yasser Abed Rabbo Geneva Accords of November 2003,

which call for two independent, sovereign and inviolable states, quite possibly separated by cordons

of foreign troops, with the demolition of all Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, and the

strict abrogation of any Palestinian right to return into the future Israel. Both of these measures

need to include substantial compensation for the people involved. What needs to be added to this

plan is the idea of a regional Marshall plan for the economic developments and postwar

reconstruction of the entire Middle East, including not just Israel and Palestine, but also such

devastated areas as Lebanon, Iraq, and Sudan, and the redressing of the pernicious effects of many

X: Obama: A Looming World Tragedy 381

years of economic sanctions against Iran and other regional nations. If American Jewish voters can

understand this lesson, they can play a critical role in defeating the colossal and reckless

adventurism of which Obama is the bearer.

In the midst of the appeasement flap, Zbigniew Brzezinski teamed up with his former NSC

assistant William Odom to present the public cloak for the new Iranian policy in the form of a

Washington Post op-ed. Compare this boilerplate to the real content of the Brzezinski plan as

outlined above, and you will come to the unavoidable conclusion that Brzezinski is truly an

accomplished liar, far more skillful in the arts of mendacity than a whole brigade of neocons,

despite their claims to be the world champions of exoteric falsehood. Brzezinski and Odom write:

‘Current U.S. policy toward the regime in Tehran will almost certainly result in an Iran with nuclear

weapons. The seemingly clever combination of the use of “sticks” and “carrots,” including the

frequent official hints of an American military option “remaining on the table,” simply intensifies

Iran’s desire to have its own nuclear arsenal. Alas, such a heavy-handed “sticks” and “carrots”

policy may work with donkeys but not with serious countries. The United States would have a

better chance of success if the White House abandoned its threats of military action and its calls for

regime change. A successful approach to Iran has to accommodate its security interests and ours.

Neither a U.S. air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities nor a less effective Israeli one could do more

than merely set back Iran’s nuclear program. In either case, the United States would be held

accountable and would have to pay the price resulting from likely Iranian reactions. These would

almost certainly involve destabilizing the Middle East, as well as Afghanistan, and serious efforts to

disrupt the flow of oil, at the very least generating a massive increase in its already high cost. The

turmoil in the Middle East resulting from a preemptive attack on Iran would hurt America and

eventually Israel, too. Given Iran’s stated goals — a nuclear power capability but not nuclear

weapons, as well as an alleged desire to discuss broader U.S.-Iranian security issues — a realistic

policy would exploit this opening to see what it might yield. The United States could indicate that it

is prepared to negotiate, either on the basis of no preconditions by either side (though retaining the

right to terminate the negotiations if Iran remains unyielding but begins to enrich its uranium

beyond levels allowed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty); or to negotiate on the basis of an Iranian

willingness to suspend enrichment in return for simultaneous U.S. suspension of major economic

and financial sanctions. Such a broader and more flexible approach would increase the prospects of

an international arrangement being devised to accommodate Iran’s desire for an autonomous

nuclear energy program while minimizing the possibility that it could be rapidly transformed into a

nuclear weapons program. Moreover, there is no credible reason to assume that the traditional

policy of strategic deterrence, which worked so well in U.S. relations with the Soviet Union and

with China and which has helped to stabilize India-Pakistan hostility, would not work in the case of

Iran. The widely propagated notion of a suicidal Iran detonating its very first nuclear weapon

against Israel is more the product of paranoia or demagogy than of serious strategic calculus. It

cannot be the basis for U.S. policy, and it should not be for Israel’s, either. An additional longerrange

benefit of such a dramatically different diplomatic approach is that it could help bring

Iran back into its traditional role of strategic cooperation with the United States in stabilizing

the Gulf region. Eventually, Iran could even return to its long-standing and geopolitically natural

pre-1979 policy of cooperative relations with Israel. One should note also in this connection Iranian

hostility toward al-Qaeda, lately intensified by al-Qaeda’s Web-based campaign urging a U.S.-

Iranian war, which could both weaken what al-Qaeda views as Iran’s apostate Shiite regime and

bog America down in a prolonged regional conflict. Last but not least, consider that American

sanctions have been deliberately obstructing Iran’s efforts to increase its oil and natural gas outputs.

That has contributed to the rising cost of energy. An eventual American-Iranian accommodation

382 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

would significantly increase the flow of Iranian energy to the world market. Americans doubtless

would prefer to pay less for filling their gas tanks than having to pay much more to finance a wider

conflict in the Persian Gulf.’ (Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom, “A Sensible Path on Iran,”

Washington Post, May 27, 2008, emphasis added) Shortly after this was published, Odom died.

GENERAL WILLIAM ODOM, ZBIG’S NSC ASSISTANT AND OBAMA BACKER

A word about Brzezinski’s co-author in the case of this article may be in order. Zbigniew

Brzezinski wrote in his memoir, Power and Principle, that he had been a sponsor of the career of

William Odom starting more than three decades ago. Here is Zbig wrote: “… I wanted on the NSC

staff some individuals who shared my broad strategic perspectives, and who could undertake the

needed review of our military doctrine, of our basic assumptions about global power, and thus help

to define new longer-range goals for the United States. Given the centrality of this undertaking, it

was important that the staffers involved share some of my basic assumptions and be congenial to

me personally. With this thought in mind, I recruited Colonel William Odom, who later became a

general while on the NSC staff, from the US military Academy at West Point. I knew him from an

earlier association with me at the research Institute on International Change at Columbia, I

respected his views on Soviet military affairs and strategy, and I considered him to be an innovative

strategic thinker.” (Power and Principle 75) Odom was a ghoulish technocrat of thermonuclear war

who later was promoted to be the head of the National Security Agency, the center for electronic

espionage. Like many other profoundly reactionary imperialist thinkers, Odom was able to reinvent

himself and refurbish himself for a the new Obama era of left cover world strategy à la Carter by the

simple expedient of declaring himself opposed to the Iraq war as it has been carried out, and to

George Bush personally — both very safe, low risk bets in today’s Washington. Predictably,

however, Odom became the darling of the left liberal antiwar set who swoon when they think of the

respectability to be gained by the fact that General Odom shares some of their most obvious

opinions.

BRZEZINSKI TRILATERALS PURGE THE US AIR FORCE

On June 6, 2008 the Trilateral faction flexed its muscles, ousting the top civilian and military

personnel of the US Air Force, who were too close to the neocons to be trusted to carry out

Brzezinski’s orders in the new phase. This extraordinary simultaneous ouster of the Secretary of the

Air Force and the Air Force chief of staff, followed by the naming of Trilateral Commissioner and

Carter administration veteran James Rodney Schlesinger to purge USAF generals and colonels,

dramatically documented the fact that power in Washington DC was no long in the hands of the

Bush-Cheney-neocon clique, but had passed to the Brzezinski-Trilateral faction.

PRINCIPALS’ COMMITTEE RULES WASHINGTON; BUSH-CHENEY OUT

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the firing of Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne

and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley, citing the failure of the Air Force to

maintain the security of strategic nuclear forces, as shown in the infamous rogue B-52 incident of

late August 2007, when a B-52 intercontinental strategic bomber with six nuclear armed cruise

missiles, hijacked by the Cheney clique, flew from North Dakota to Louisiana totally outside of the

purview of the USAF command control and communications systems. Gates, we recall, had been

Brzezinski’s office boy at the NSC between 1977 and 1979.Gates also mentioned that four hightech

electrical nosecone fuses for Minuteman nuclear warheads were sent to Taiwan in place of

X: Obama: A Looming World Tragedy 383

helicopter batteries, along with other failures. Gates was a leading member of the Principals’

Committee, an interagency group which now ran the US government from day to day with scant

reference to the discredited outgoing lame ducks Bush and Cheney, who stayed on mainly as

figureheads. The Principals’ Committee had been in charge of the US government since no later

than early May, around the time of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, when the controlled

corporate media began trumpeting that Obama was the winner of the Democratic nomination. The

Principals’ Committee was made up of Pentagon boss Gates, Secretary of State Rice, NSC director

Hadley, Joint Chiefs of Staff head Admiral Mullen, and intelligence czar McConnell, along with a

few others. Treasury Secretary Paulson of Goldman Sachs is also probably onboard. Attorney

General Michael Mukasey appears to be cooperating as well, as does a majority of the justices on

the Supreme Court. These figures are now marching to the tune of Trilateral Commission bigwigs

like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Joseph Nye, and the Rockefeller family. These are the same forces who

own and control the Wall Street Manchurian candidate Obama. It is notable that the high-profile

purge of the USAF came less than 48 hours after Obama had unilaterally proclaimed himself the

Democratic presidential nominee. The Principals’ Committee rules in the name of a panoligarchical

consensus.

The rogue B-52 flew with six nuclear cruise missiles from Minot AFB North Dakota to

Barksdale AFB Louisiana on August 30, 2007. Source reports published by Wayne Madsen suggest

that the B-52 was stopped by patriotic low-level USAF personnel. As the issue of whether to allow

the plane to fly on to the Middle East went up the chain of command and expanded to involve the

intelligence agencies, it transpired that the majority of the government and the establishment did not

want the plane to attack targets in the Middle East. The scandal of the rogue B-52 broke on

September 5, 2007, and a stand-down and nuclear census of the entire USAF soon followed.

According to all indications, the B-52 was under the extra-legal control of the Cheney faction,

which evidently planned to fly it to the Middle East and quite possibly use one or more of the

nuclear cruise missiles in an attack on Iran and/or Syria, probably in cooperation or coordination

with the Israeli air attack on Syria which occurred on September 6, 2007. The fact that the B-52 was

blocked may have represented the last gasp of the Bush-Cheney-neocon faction, and the beginning

of the hegemony of a different and far more dangerous group, namely the Brzezinski-Trilateral

faction.

The Gates purge indicates that the new Trilateral masters of Washington DC do not trust the

USAF generals who are so deeply compromised with the Bush-Cheney-neocon faction. The USAF

was up to its neck in 9/11, and then in the rogue B-52 affair. The Trilaterals are accordingly driving

out the old rogues, and replacing them with new rogue generals of their own, who are loyal to the

insane Trilateral agenda. Brzezinski does not want nuclear weapons wasted on Iran, which he

intends to turn into an expendable puppet or kamikaze pawn in his apocalyptic showdown with

Russian and China. This is what Obama’s appeasement of Iran actually aims at: Iran as a US asset

to be played against Russia and China. Brzezinski wants to be in control of those nukes, since he

may soon need them for use against Russia and China. Those who might celebrate the defeat of the

Bush-Cheney-neocon group must rather face the fact that the US had just jumped out of the frying

pan of conventional invasions and into the fire of looming thermonuclear confrontations among the

great powers. This is the real nature of the change for which Obama is the public symbol. Obama’s

foreign policy will be dictated in every respect by Trilateral co-founder Brzezinski. Obama is now

supported and surrounded by Trilateral members David Rockefeller, Jay Rockefeller, Joseph Nye,

Paul Adolph Volcker, Jimmy Carter, and many more. With James “Rodney the Robot” Schlesinger

now helping to purge the Pentagon, including its associated intelligence agencies, the Trilateral grip

384 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

on Washington DC is tightening. Obama’s choice of a vice president, it was announced, would be

dictated by long-time Trilateral stalwart Jim Johnson, a former aide to Trilateral operative Vice

President Walter Mondale.

The last time the Principals’ Committee or its equivalent was this powerful was back in 1999,

when President Clinton had been forced to mortgage and sacrifice most of his constitutional powers

in exchange for votes in the Senate to avoid being removed from office. At that time, the

Principals’ Committee had been composed of Vice President Gore, Secretary of State Albright,

Defense Secretary Cohen, General Shelton of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and top bureaucrat Richard

Clarke, with help from Bill Richardson and Richard Holbrook, among others. At that time, the

main project which the Principals’ Committee was promoting was the bombing of Serbia, which

was seen as a means for humiliating the Russian government of Boris Yeltsin and promoting the

further disintegration of Russia, in conformity with what we know today as the Brzezinski plan.

Russian Prime Minister Primakov was flying across the Atlantic with a very high probability of

arriving at a negotiated solution when the despicable Al Gore gave the order to begin the bombing

of Serbia, causing Primakov to turn back over mid-ocean, and return to Moscow. At a later point,

the scoundrel General Wesley Clark joined forces with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in order

to secure a NATO invasion of Serbia by land forces, a move which would have led to extravagant

casualties on the NATO side in the course of destroying that country. By this time, fortunately,

Clinton had recouped enough of his powers to be able to block the move, which coincided with the

Washington conference held to mark the 50th anniversary of the NATO pact. This time around, the

task of the Principals’ Committee was clearly the winding down of the Iraq war, and the ratcheting

up of operations against Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, Venezuela, and ultimately against China and

Russia.

The rogue B-52 incident was forecast by me in an essay entitled “Cheney Determined to Strike

in US with WMD This Summer,” issued on July 21, 2007, and widely distributed in July-August

2007 on the internet and in print form in the Rock Creek Free Press in Washington, as well as in

other papers. This was followed by the Kennebunkport Warning, which was posted online in the

evening of August 26, 2007, less than 72 hours before the rogue B-52 nuclear missiles were loaded.

By September 3, the Kennebunkport Warning was posted on 110,000 web sites worldwide. The

precision and timeliness of this warning represent an unprecedented intelligence achievement. But

since October-December 2007, the danger of a US attack on Iran has steadily declined.

Brzezinski’s hit list is much more ambitious, and includes Sudan, Pakistan, Burma, and China,

all stepping stones to the final reckoning with Moscow. The main possibility of an attack on Iran in

the present situation comes from disgruntled Israeli factions like the one around Netanyahu who are

aghast that they are being demoted from their previous role as the hub of US strategy to the status of

just another expendable pawn in Brzezinski’s lunatic plan for confrontation with Beijing and

Moscow. The Israelis are horrified by Obama, just as everyone in the world should be. The winning

faction of the US-UK establishment does not want the attack on Iran, and the Israelis would be

foolhardy to try it on their own. The threats today from former IDF chief and Israeli Transport

Minister Shaul Mofaz, about an Israeli solo attack on Iran because of the failure of economic

sanctions to stop nuclear development, indicate deep discontent, but the guess here is that they are a

bluff. We will soon find out: if the Israelis do not strike Iran in the next few weeks, they will have

lost their chance, as the Trilaterals continue to consolidate their power.

X: Obama: A Looming World Tragedy 385

THE BRZEZINSKI PLAN FOR RUSSIA

Groaning under the weight of two lost wars, the terminal crisis of the US dollar, banking panic,

and hyperinflation, the US ruling elite is attempting to unify itself around Obama for a breathtaking

reversal of their entire strategic and ideological field. The intent is to largely jettison the post-9/11

enemy image of Islamic terrorism and the focus on the Middle East, and to shift target to Russia,

China, and their allies in a vast global showdown or planetary end game for which Obama is

supposed to be the figurehead.

As outlined by the cold warrior and Russia-hater Brzezinski, the first phase is to eject the

Chinese from Africa, cutting off their access to oil and raw materials, and thus sabotaging their

current rapid industrial development. All of Africa is rapidly becoming a battlefield of the US

against the Chinese, and Obama is the ideal front man for this. Chinese allies like Sudan, and also

Pakistan and Burma, are all being targeted as part of this plan. With Iran and Syria, the effort will

not be to attack them, but to turn them against Russia and China. This Brzezinski design is why

Obama says he wants to negotiate with Iran, but bomb Pakistan.

China is being weakened and destabilized by the Tibetan insurrection and other operations, and

Zbig would like to stage a large-scale incident under the cover of the summer Olympics. In the final

stage, Zbig thinks he can drive the oil-starved Chinese in on Russia’s provinces of eastern Siberia,

where there is much oil and few Russians. Obama is thus the bearer of a plan for Sino-Russian

World War III that far surpasses the insanity of the neocons. Since Russia and China are both well

aware of the Brzezinski plan, this entire lunatic project is sure to blow up in our faces, with

cataclysmic results. The Iraq war will seem a tea party by comparison. The main grounds for

aggression in the new phase will be humanitarian and human rights claims, not terrorism, so as to

maximize left cover.

OBAMA’S ATTACK ON PAKISTAN

An example of the heightened aggressiveness that could be expected under the Brzezinski plan

was the question of unilateral US bombing of Pakistan. Not a few observers spent the first half of

2008 worrying about an imminent attack on Iran. The reality was that the growing power of the

Brzezinski faction in Washington made such an attack less and less likely, at least as far as the

United States and the United Kingdom were concerned. But these same observers were largely

blind to a program of systematic aggression being carried out by the United States and the British

against Pakistan, a country that was almost 3 times larger than Iran, and became equipped with

nuclear weapons and medium-range ballistic missiles to deliver them. Every gust of wind in the

Persian Gulf was considered a harbinger of Armageddon, but the constant bombing raids in the

northwest regions of Pakistan were considered a matter of scant importance.

The irony was that the bombing attacks on Pakistan had been demanded by none other than

Obama. Speaking indeed the July 2007 Democratic candidates’ debate held in Chicago, in a

colloquy with Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Obama had stated: ‘And, Chris,

respectfully — and you and I are close friends — but the fact is you obviously didn’t read my

speech. Because what I said was that we have to refocus, get out of Iraq, make certain that we are

helping Pakistan deal with the problem of al Qaeda in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But, Chris, if we have actionable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives, including bin Laden, and

President Musharraf cannot act, then we should. Now, I think that’s just common sense. I don’t

know about you, but for us to authorize — (cheers, applause) — (inaudible) --.’203

386 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Senator Clinton had disagreed with this reckless and unilateral approach: ‘“You can think big,

but remember, you shouldn’t always say everything you think if you’re running for president,

because it has consequences around the world,” Senator Clinton had retorted. Dodd had joined

Clinton in criticizing Obama. Dodd said Obama’s stance could undermine Pakistani President

Pervez Musharraf, the country’s military ruler, who has been a U.S. ally in the fight against al

Qaeda. “While General Musharraf is no Thomas Jefferson, he may be the only thing that stands

between us and having an Islamic fundamentalist state in that country,” Dodd said. “So while I

would like to see him change, the reality is, if we lose him, then what we face is an alternative that

could be a lot worse for our country.”204

Dodd added: ‘I think it’s highly responsible — or irresponsible for people who are running for

the presidency and seek that office to suggest we may be willing unilaterally to invade a nation here

who we’re trying to get to be more cooperative with us in Afghanistan and elsewhere. So my views

— and I say this respectfully to my friend from Illinois here — I think it was wrong to say what he

did in that matter. I think it’s important for us to be very careful about the language we use, make it

clear that if this United States is going to build the relationships around the world, we’re going to

have to do so with allies, in some cases allies that we may not particularly like.’205 Senator McCain

had criticized Obama for making such a reckless and incendiary proposal. President Bush himself

stated that he intended to work closely with President Musharraf in regard to all operations

conducted by the United States on Pakistani territory.

JAKE TAPPER: OBAMA MORE AGGRESSIVE THAN BUSH

Since the tenant of the White House had ruled out the unilateral bombing of Pakistan which

Obama had demanded, the matter appeared to be closed. Jake Tapper of ABC News found it

striking that Obama, who was posing as the peace candidate for Iraq, should be so aggressive in

regard to Pakistan. Tapper showed that Obama was raising the issue on the campaign trail, quoting

him. ‘“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges,” Obama said, “but let me

make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans.

They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take

out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value

terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” There it was again: unilateral US

bombing of a sovereign state that had nuclear weapons. Tapper commented: ‘In many ways, the

speech is counterintuitive; Obama, one of the more liberal candidates in the race, is proposing a

geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush.’ (Jake Tapper, ‘Presidential

Candidate Pushes Aggressive Stance Toward Pakistan,’ ABC News, August 1, 2007)206 In other

words, when it came to Pakistan, Obama was a bigger warmonger than any Republican or Democrat

in sight, including Bush and McCain, to say nothing of Clinton.

Astoundingly, the power of Brzezinski in Washington grew so rapidly that Obama was destined

to prevail, imposing his policy instead of the announced intentions of the man who kept calling

himself the president of the United States. Late in March 2008, a press account revealed that the US

had indeed gone over to unilaterally bombing northwest Pakistan: ‘The United States has escalated

its unilateral strikes against al-Qaeda members and fighters operating in Pakistan’s tribal areas,

partly because of anxieties that Pakistan’s new leaders will insist on scaling back military

operations in that country, according to U.S. officials. “We have always said that as for strikes, that

is for Pakistani forces to do and for the Pakistani government to decide. . . . We do not envision a

situation in which foreigners will enter Pakistan and chase targets,” said Farhatullah Babar, a top

spokesman for the Pakistan People’s Party, whose leader, Yousaf Raza Gillani, is the new prime

X: Obama: A Looming World Tragedy 387

minister. “This war on terror is our war.” But Kamran Bokhari, a Pakistani who directs Middle East

analysis for Strategic Forecasting, a private intelligence group in Washington, said the new

government will almost certainly take a harder line against such strikes. “These . . . are very

unpopular, not because people support al-Qaeda, but because they feel Pakistan has no

sovereignty,” he said. The latest Predator strike, on March 16, killed about 20 in Shahnawaz Kot; a

Feb. 28 strike killed 12 foreign militants in the village of Kaloosha; and a Jan. 29 strike killed 13

people, including senior al-Qaeda commander Abu Laith al-Libi, in North Waziristan.’ (Robin

Wright and Joby Warrick, “US Steps Up Unilateral Strikes in Pakistan,” Washington Post, March

27, 2008)207

Soon it became clear that this was a systematic US bombing campaign and represented a scandal

as big in its own way as the Nixon-Kissinger secret bombing of Cambodia back in the early 1970s.

This is no hyperbole; we must simply remember that a nuclear power, and not some banana

republic, is being attacked! Soon it became clear that the US bombing campaign was being

conducted with wild and reckless abandon, and that members of Pakistani paramilitary formations

were getting killed: ‘Pakistan is condemning a U.S. air strike which allegedly killed 11 Pakistani

paramilitaries as a “completely unprovoked and cowardly act.” U.S.-led forces killed Pakistani

troops in an air strike along the volatile Afghan border that Pakistan’s army condemned on

Wednesday as “completely unprovoked and cowardly.” U.S. officials confirmed that three aircraft

launched about a dozen bombs following a clash between Taliban militants and Afghan and U.S.-

led coalition forces late Tuesday. Pakistan says the strikes killed 11 of its paramilitary troops. The

Pakistani army said the air strike hit a post of the paramilitary Frontier Corps in the Mohmand tribal

region …. It launched a strong protest and reserved “the right to protect our citizens and soldiers

against aggression,” the military said in a statement. The statement said the clash “had hit at the

very basis of cooperation” between the allies in the war on terror.’208 The Pakistani government was

now the one elected in the elections conducted after the death of Benazir Bhutto in December 2007.

This was supposedly the regime the US had wanted to install, but Brzezinski was doing everything

possible to humiliate, mortified, and thoroughly antagonize the new government in Islamabad. The

Frontier Post of Pakistan reported: ‘On June 10, 2008 US - led coalition forces along the Afghan

border launched an air strike on a Frontier Corps Sheikh Baba border post in the mountainous Gora

Prai region in Mohmand Agency. 11 Pakistani paramilitary troops including one major, 10 civilians

killed and several injured. The incident took place inside Pakistan, near the border with

Afghanistan. Pentagon confirmed that coordinated artillery and air strikes were carried out. On Jun

11 2008, Prime Minister Gilani condemned the deaths, telling parliament: “We will take a stand for

the sake of this country’s sovereignty, for the sake of its dignity and self-respect”. He further

revealed that “We do not allow our territory to be used. We completely condemn this, and will take

it up through the foreign office.”’ (“NATO’s Senseless Aggressiveness in FATA,” Frontier Post)209

By early July 2008, the US was making preparations tom escalate: US commandos are reportedly

poised to launch raids against al-Qa’ida and Taliban targets in Pakistan as Washington moves an

aircraft carrier into the Arabian Sea. The redeployment of the Abraham Lincoln and its escort

vessels from the Gulf yesterday came after US military intelligence officials recorded an increase in

the number of foreign fighters travelling to Pakistan’s tribal areas to join with militants.’210

What was Brzezinski doing? He was obviously using a pretext of bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the

Taliban in order to destroy the central government of Pakistan, and promote civil war,

Balkanization, partitioning, and subdivision in that country. The goal was evidently the division of

Pakistan into three or four or five petty states, including such areas as Sind, Pushtunistan,

Baluchistan, and so forth. This operation had nothing whatsoever to do with bin Laden, Al Qaeda,

388 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

the Taliban, or the “global war on terror,” but had everything to do with the fact that Pakistan was a

traditional Chinese ally and economic and trading partner. Pakistan had to be destroyed as part of

the Brzezinski strategy to strip China of all of her allies, and promote the isolation and encirclement

of the Middle Kingdom. By this time, northwest Pakistan was one of the very few parts of the

world where the US continued to rely on the bin Laden-Al Qaeda myth to justify its policy.

Elsewhere, considerations of humanitarian intervention and human rights were on the front burner.

GOP: LAME DUCK BUSH REDUCED TO CHILD’S PLAY

In the late spring and early summer of 2008, a series of events further underlined the degree to

which Bush, Cheney, and the neocons had indeed lost power to Brzezinski and company. Bush and

Cheney appeared to have about as much power as the White House janitor or the groundskeeper at

the Naval Observatory. Bush and Cheney were variously described as finished, washed up, lame

ducks, figureheads, and kaput. Some Republicans were becoming concerned that Bush had lapsed

into a figurehead-lame-duck status, and impotence and passivity so extreme that they might become

a negative factor for McCain in the upcoming election. One columnist noted: ‘Some of President

Bush’s allies tell the Political Bulletin they are embarrassed and angry that the White House seems

to be wasting Bush’s time on frivolous events when much of the country is suffering through

economic hard times. “Look at the schedule for Monday,” says an outside Bush adviser. “A highlight

of his day was witnessing a tee ball game. ... He is being reduced to child’s play.” The adviser says

Bush also signed a supplemental appropriations bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on

Monday, but he adds that it didn’t get much coverage and that the tee ball game set the wrong tone.

There is growing concern among Bush allies that the Democrats will effectively portray the

President and GOP candidate John McCain as out of touch. Some GOP insiders now predict that the

Republicans will lose at least five seats in the Senate and 15 to 20 in the House, and it could get

worse if gasoline prices continue to soar and the public remains in a disgruntled mood.’211

THE NORTH KOREA DEAL: CHENEY VANQUISHED, APOPLECTIC

A leading symptom of this loss of power by Bush and Cheney was the announcement by

Secretary of State Rice, another member of the Principals’ Committee, that a deal had been reached

with North Korea (the DPRK) concerning the termination of the North Korean nuclear weapons

program, in exchange for which the United States had pledged to remove North Korea from the

State Department list of terrorist states. The remaining neocons were apoplectic to the point of

foaming at the mouth. The British press revealed that the diehard Cheney had fought tooth and nail

to block this deal, but had been vanquished by Rice — and thus by the superior power of the

Principals’ Committee, in our view: ‘Vice President Dick Cheney fought furiously to block efforts

by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to strike a controversial US compromise deal with North

Korea over the communist state’s nuclear program… Mr Cheney was so angry about the decision to

remove North Korea from the terrorism blacklist and lift some sanctions that he abruptly curtailed a

meeting with visiting US foreign experts when asked about it in the White House last week,

according to the New York Times “I’m not going to be the one to announce this decision. You need

to address your interest in this to the State Department,” he reportedly said before leaving the room.

“The exchanges between Cheney’s office and Rice’s people at State got very testy. But ultimately

Condi had the President’s ear and persuaded him that his legacy would be stronger if they reached a

deal with Pyongyang,” said a Pentagon adviser who was briefed on the battle.’ Top neocon John

Bolton was beside himself with rage, and saw this deal with the DPRK as a harbinger of the neocon

Götterdämmerung: ‘“It’s shameful,” said John Bolton, Bush’s former U.S. ambassador to the

X: Obama: A Looming World Tragedy 389

United Nations. “This represents the final collapse of Bush’s foreign policy.” (CBS-AP, June 26,

2008) the mood of his fellow neocon Richard Perle was equally apocalyptic: ‘“Usually the word

‘meltdown’ applies to a nuclear reactor. In this case it applies to Bush administration diplomacy

which once aimed to halt the North Korean program and has now become an abject failure,”

Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon defense policy board in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq

invasion, told the Telegraph.’ (Daily Telegraph, June 28, 2008)

At the same time, a pattern of intense diplomatic activity had emerged across the Middle East,

even as the Israeli politician Shaul Mofaz was threatening Iran with an inevitable nuclear attack if it

were to persevere in its alleged attempts to procure nuclear bombs. The Israelis were known to be

negotiating with Syria in a series of talks mediated by the Turkish government. The Israelis were

also making deals with Hamas and Hezbollah, something that was formally speaking a violation of

the strict Bush doctrine in this regard. Remarkably, the top levels of the US government issued

some unusual warnings to the Israelis, telling them to back off from any plan to strike at Iran:

“President Bush and the top U.S. military commander warned Israel... against bombing Iran,

suggesting the U.S. doesn’t want to get involved in a third war. “This is a very unstable part of the

world and I don’t need it to be more unstable,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman [and

leading member of the ruling Principals’ Committee], said at a briefing. Bush said, “I have made it

clear to all parties [including Israel] that the first option is diplomacy,” in getting Iran to stop

enriching uranium that could be used for a nuclear weapon. The warnings came after the disclosure

that Israel had conducted air operations over the Mediterranean that could simulate a strike on

Iran.’212

In addition to these public warnings, there were also reports of private messages telling the

Israelis to back off. One was delivered by Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mullen of the Principals’

Committee: ‘The US did not give the green light for an Israeli attack on Iran, Prof. Anthony H.

Cordesman, a former Pentagon official and currently the top defense analyst at the ABC TV

network, said…. Cordesman was speaking during a meeting with Israeli defense analysts held by

the Institute of National Security Studies. He said IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi

Ashkenazi was notified of the United States’ stance regarding Iran by Admiral Michael Mullen, the

top uniformed US military officer, during Mullen’s visit here at the end of June. The US has opted

at this point to stick to the diplomatic track in its efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear, and has

made clear to Israel that it shouldn’t attack Iran without White House approval, Cordesman said. He

added that the current US policy is likely to remain unchanged at least until the next US president is

sworn in. Israeli officials confirmed that Cordesman’s statements indeed reflected the current tone

of US policy.’213

There were also indications that Iran was being offered the possibility of continuing to enrich

uranium at the level of its present capacity to do so, while opening a negotiation with Solana of the

European Union. This was welcomed by the Iran Foreign Minister Mottaki, and was widely

regarded as the prelude to a deal or modus vivendi between the US under Brzezinski and the

Iranians: “Iran agreed …to enter into talks with the European Union about its nuclear program

before the end of the month, Iranian state-run media said. The EU, which recently placed sanctions

on Iran, has offered a package of political, economic and security incentives to Iran if it halts

uranium enrichment. Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, called EU foreign policy chief

Javier Solana to tell him the response to that offer was coming, according to Iran’s Islamic Republic

News Agency, and Solana’s office characterized Jalili’s tone as friendly and positive. The EU has

proposed suspending further sanctions if Iran takes a six-week break from installing or

manufacturing any more centrifuges that enrich uranium. Iran would be allowed to continue to run

390 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

the more than 3,000 centrifuges it already has but could not manufacture more (“Iran ready to

discuss EU’s nuclear offer,” CNN, July 4, 2008)214 In the midst of these negotiations, Iran launched

a number of medium and short range ballistic missiles. The neocons tried to beat the drum, but the

response of Secretary Gates of the Principals’ Committee was as low-key and placid as could be

imagined: ‘The United States is no closer to confrontation with Iran after Tehran test-fired missiles

it says could reach Israel and U.S. assets in the Middle East, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said

Wednesday. Asked if the United States was any closer to confrontation, Gates told reporters: “No, I

don’t think so.” Gates also said it was “highly unlikely” that Russian air defense missiles would be

in Iranian hands soon. An improved air defense system would make a strike on Iran more difficult.’

(Reuters: “Pentagon chief: US no closer to Iran confrontation,” July 9, 2008)215 Gates also

mentioned the terrible consequences which any hostilities with Iran would have. The following day,

there were press reports that the US was allowing the Israelis to use Iraqi airspace to ready an attack

on Iran. These reports were quickly denied by the Pentagon. An Israeli attack could not be ruled

out, but there was no doubt that the US and the British were strongly opposed to the idea, which

would undercut Brzezinski’s entire plan of turning Iran against the Russians.

On July 11, 2008, it was reported that Treasury Secretary Paulson had convinced Bush that the

administration policy of hostility to Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, the twin mortgage lenders whose

debts amounted to some $5.3 trillion, was risking a systemic crisis of the US banking system – a

financial Armageddon. Paulson reportedly told Bush that if he insisted on driving Freddie and

Fannie into liquidation, he would be Hooverized in very short order, long before he left office. At

this point, wheels were set into motion and the Federal Reserve that Freddie and Fannie might get

access to the discount window of the US central bank. This story is highly relevant here because it

shows the degree to which the members of the Principals Committee are now running the

government and telling Bush what to do on most the major issues. A few weeks later, Paulson also

forced Bush to drop his threat to veto a bill to bail out the giant mortgage lenders, a measure

stridently demanded by Wall Street. It is clear that Brzezinski and his fellow oligarchs intend to

maintain and consolidate the current preeminence of the Principals’ Committee under a possible

future Obama administration, and also if McCain becomes president, although that variant is much

less promising for their hopes of giving US imperialism a hyper-demagogic facelift.

NEOCONS DISPLACED BY TRILATERALS, 2006-2008

The erosion of neocon power had proceeded apace, starting around the time of the 2006 US

congressional elections. Around that time, British intelligence began signaling the urgent necessity

of shifting target towards Russia by staging two bombastic intelligence circuses in the form of the

Politkovskaya murder and the Litvinenko affair, both of which were immediately blamed on

Russian President Putin. The British also stepped up their subversion efforts inside the Russian

Federation under the cover of cultural exchanges conduited through the Foreign Office front

organization, the British Council. As a result of the new Democratic majority in the Congress, the

discredited neocon faction leader Rumsfeld was forced out and replaced by Robert Gates, a

Sovietologist who had served as the Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski’s office boy at the National

Security Council during 1977, 1978, and 1979. Gates had also been active in Brzezinski’s mujahedin

operations against the Soviets, operations which had been given birth to the CIA Arab Legion, Al

Qaeda. At the end of 2006, the report of the Iraq study group, also known as the Baker-Hamilton

commission, signaled a change in oligarchical policy and with it the beginning of the end of the

neocon dominance in Washington. The Iraq study group recommended that there be no US attack

on Iran, and that negotiations with Syria and Iran be begun immediately. James Baker, a former

X: Obama: A Looming World Tragedy 391

secretary of state under Bush the Elder, stated explicitly that he had procured Syria as an ally for the

United States during the first Gulf War, and that he could do so again. Neocon press organs screamed

that Baker and Hamilton were “surrender monkeys,” but the handwriting was now on the wall. The

middle of the year saw the fall of the crypto-neocon Tony Blair, a creature of Rupert Murdoch and

the last of the major European leaders who had cooperated with Bush and the neocons to unleash

the Iraq war in the first place. The last serious attempt of the neocon faction to launch war with Iran

probably occurred at the end of August and the beginning of September 2007, when rogue forces

allied with Cheney in effect hijacked a B-52 intercontinental strategic bomber carrying six nuclear

armed cruise missiles, and flew it from North Dakota to Louisiana. One or more of these missiles

was probably destined to join in the Israeli attack on Syria which occurred on September 6. The

fact that this B-52 was not allowed to proceed, and that a consensus against letting it leaves the

United States rapidly emerged in the higher levels of the oligarchy, probably represented the last

gasp of the US - UK neocons as far as starting a wider war was concerned. Bush’s outbursts in

October and November about World War III were partly directed against Putin, and partly

expressed his frustration that no strategic attacks on Iran were likely. This overall impression was

solidified in December 2007 with the issuance of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which

concluded that there was no longer any active Iranian program to build nuclear bombs.

In 2008, attention was already shifting to such classic Brzezinski gambits as Kosovo

independence and the emerging Polish missile crisis, along with the Tibet insurrection, threats to

attack Sudan, and a clear desire to use a humanitarian emergency in Burma as a pretext for a

humanitarian invasion and regime change using the story that the Burmese junta was not an

efficient distributor of relief supplies. During these same months, the US Supreme Court was

handing down the majority opinions striking down the Bush-Cheney military commissions plan for

alleged terrorist captives, and then asserting the right of habeas corpus for the prisoners being held

in the US exclave of Guantánamo Bay Cuba. Once again, the neocons howled in their impotence.

Then came the deal to de-list North Korea as a terrorist state, followed by increasing indications of

an imminent deal with Iran, even as the attacks on Pakistan escalated and that country teetered on

the brink of civil war and partition. The years had not been kind to the neocons: Scooter Libby had

been convicted, and only escaped prison through Bush’s highly controversial pardon. Lord Conrad

Black, arguably an even bigger neocon then Libby, was now actually serving a multi-year prison

sentence in a US federal penitentiary for embezzling money from his companies. Lord Black had

been one of the major funders of the American Enterprise Institute, where no less a personage than

Lynn Cheney, as well as Richard Perle and Michael Ledeen, had been employed. As for Ledeen,

his problems might only be beginning: a report from the Senate Intelligence Committee alleged that

Ledeen and his old Iran-Contra friend Ghorbanifar had conspired to manipulate US intelligence

during the run-up to the Iraq war. This report had no doubt received much personal attention from

the Committee Chairman, who was none other than Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, of the

Trilateral-Rockefeller faction which also included Brzezinski. These were some of the steps by

which the Trilaterals had ousted the neocons from their previous positions of power, had neutralized

Bush and Cheney, and had generally introduced a demagogic left turn in the entire posture of Anglo

American foreign policy, propaganda, and intelligence operations. Now, all they needed was a

figurehead to become the spokesman for this deceptive and cynical left turn — and this was

obviously the role assigned to Obama.

If the American people could imagine no conflict worse than the Iraq war, they were obviously

suffering from a severe poverty of imagination. Zbigniew Brzezinski’s imagination was richer than

that. He could and did imagine a drive to break up both Russia and China, reducing both to a

392 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

congeries of warlords and petty states, all absolutely impotent to resist the Anglo-Americans. That

would give London and Washington another century of world domination. Brzezinski would always

claim that his intention was to accomplish all this using proxies, surrogates, and pawns, and without

embroiling the US in war with Russia and China. His approach had all the defects of the old

Cliveden set of the 1930s, who were convinced that they could build up Hitler, turn him east, play

him against Stalin, and destroy both Germany and the USSR in the process. Unfortunately, they had

been too clever by half, and their plan had blown up in their faces when Hitler turned west before

going east.

That had been World War II. Now, it was clear that Brzezinski’s fantastic strategy was also

destined to blow up in his face, and in all our faces. An Obama regime was therefore a probable

one-way ticket to thermonuclear war, an outcome several orders of magnitude worse than anything

the neocons had ever plotted. Brzezinski and his friends were more aggressive, more adventurous,

more intelligent, and more insane than the neocons. The American people, if they succumbed to

Obama, were about to leap out of the frying pan and into the fire.

BRZEZINSKI WARNS OF WORLD WAR IV UNDER MCCAIN

Perhaps responding to criticisms like the ones developed here, Brzezinski has attempted to

refurbish his image as a relative dove. He has warned about the temptation to try to win militarily in

Afghanistan, which is the trap he himself used to destroy the USSR. Brzezinski means to say that

the point of waging war in Afghanistan is not the permanent occupation and subduing of

Afghanistan, but rather using the Afghan war to destroy Pakistan, along with Afghanistan itself.

Above all, Brzezinski wants to avoid being exposed as the most dangerous warmonger of them all,

stating: “Well, if McCain is president and if his Secretary of State is Joe Lieberman and his

Secretary of Defense is [Rudolph] Giuliani, we will be moving towards the World War IV that they

have been both favoring and predicting,” he said, calling that an “appalling concept” (and adding

that by their lights, the Cold War counted as World War III). “So it depends on who are the

principal officers. If it’s [Richard] Armitage, or if it were to be Brent Scowcroft, I think it would be

very different.” Asked who he would like to see in a potential Obama cabinet, Brzezinski said: “I

think [Sen. Chuck] Hagel. I would like to see a bipartisan cabinet. I think we need one very badly

— and we did well in the Cold War when we had one. I would say Hagel and [Sen. Dick] Lugar

would be very good Republicans [for Obama].” He also cited Sen. Joe Biden as a potential

Secretary of State, in which case it would also be possible to “keep [Secretary of Defense Bob]

Gates in the job for a few months.” Brzezinski said such a cabinet would be an important step in

redressing the increased partisanship of foreign affairs in recent years, adding: “I think there is a

tendency, because of the very complexity of the issues, for solutions to become polarized and more

extreme. ... Republicans move toward neocon-ish formulas, and Democrats [follow] idealistically

escapist formulas. In either case you don’t end up with the necessary mix of idealism and

realism.”216 In other words, we need a united oligarchy in order to guarantee another century of

empire. It is the neocon project of world domination, in a form that is more clever and more insane

at the same time.

CHAPTER XI: OBAMA AS SOCIAL FASCIST

“…the oscillations among the responses could intensify in such a way as to threaten to destroy

both ideals and institutions…. This situation could lead to a two-phase dialectic involving

intensified efforts to reform government, followed by intensified frustration when those efforts

produce not progress in a liberal-democratic direction, but obstacles to meeting perceived

functional needs. The weakening of government in an effort to reform it could lead eventually to

strong demands for the replacement of the weakened and ineffective institutions by more

authoritarian structures more effectively designed to meet historical needs. Given the perversity

of reform, moralistic extremism in the pursuit of liberal democracy could generate a strong tide

toward authoritarian efficiency.” Samuel Huntington, 1981

“If it will take fascism, we’ll have to have fascism.” Weatherman Ted Gold, 1969

The argument that Obama would be another Pétain-like Carter, offering his noble qualities only

to be overwhelmed by ignoble reality, is the deepest fear about him, or at least the one that most

resonates with me. – James Fallows, Atlantic Monthly, September 2008

Much of the American public will object to this book’s thesis that Barack Hussein Obama must

be considered as a postmodern fascist, or as a neo-fascist, a fascist lite or simply as a fascist. Leftliberals

will predictably be the most vehement in their rejection of this theme, since it is they who

have embraced the New Messiah with the greatest willful blindness and hysteria, refusing to listen

to any reasoned arguments to the contrary. How can Obama be a fascist when he has cultivated a

pose of being the true anti-war candidate – apart from such trifles as his demand that Pakistanis be

slaughtered with reckless abandon in their own country without notification to their government.

How can he be a fascist when he is some kind of leftist, and when he poses as an insurgent?

Rightists will object that Obama is really a Moslem. Other rightists will claim that he is a Marxist or

crypto-communist. Many ordinary people will tend towards the view that he is just another

American pragmatist like the rest of us, but with views that are somewhat extreme and radical on a

range of subjects – making Obama someone to vote against perhaps, but not a fascist. In order to

clarify this issue, we need to go back and look at what fascism was. To make matters simpler, we

will concentrate on the Italian fascists, partly since it was they who invented fascism, and partly

since we can conduct a calmer analysis if we do not make Hitler and the Nazis the prime examples

– although we will mention them from time to time to illustrate what we are saying about fascism in

general.

Obama’s signature mass rallies are perhaps the factor that first alerted some right-wing

journalists to the nature of the Obama pseudo-movement. For many, this awareness began to

emerge in February 2008, when the Obama postmodern coup was already well underway, despite

temporary reverses. David Brooks, for example, wrote: “The afflicted had already been through the

phases of Obama-mania — fainting at rallies, weeping over their touch screens while watching

Obama videos, spending hours making folk crafts featuring Michelle Obama’s face. These patients

had experienced intense surges of hope-amine, the brain chemical that fuels euphoric sensations of

historic change and personal salvation. But they found that as the weeks went on, they needed more

and purer hope-injections just to preserve the rush. They wound up craving more hope than even the

Hope Pope could provide, and they began experiencing brooding moments of suboptimal

hopefulness. Anxious posts began to appear on the Yes We Can! Facebook pages. A sense of ennui

began to creep through the nation’s Ian McEwan-centered book clubs. Up until now The Chosen

One’s speeches had seemed to them less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that

394 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to

wonder if His stuff actually made sense. For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the

change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have

we been waiting since we’ve been here all along?” (David Brooks, New York Times, February 19,

2008)

The other aspect of the Obama lemming legions which has attracted the attention of some

commentators is a specious rage with which they turn on those who do not share their fanatical

devotion to the Perfect Master. Professor Paul Krugman is surely one of the more intelligent of

these critics when he writes: “Why, then, is there so much venom out there? I won’t try for fake

evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want

their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously

close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration —

remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.” (Paul Krugman, New

York Times, February 11, 2008)

Obama’s general demeanor and rhetorical style has been compared to that of Mussolini, the first

fascist to seize power in a major country. David Plotz of Slate.com was shocked by the mob rule

overtones of the Obama agitation: ‘The deputy editor of a major online magazine spent time in a

weekly podcast explaining how the style of Senator Barack Obama shares much in common with

the speech of fascist dictators like Benito Mussolini. “That’s slightly fascistic,” David Plotz, the

deputy editor at Slate.com said in the magazine’s weekly podcast when one of his fellow editors

brought up Obama’s style. “That’s a very, like, let’s rally the nation. I don’t want to be rallied.”

After his fellow Slate editors lightly gibed him for his statement, he continued the point: “My

brother who is an academic wrote this wonderful book about crowds, and crowd theory. And one of

the sort of lessons that he’s always imparted to me is just that crowds are terrifying. Crowds are

horrifying for the most part because they have a will of their own, and they act independently of

rationality. And I think that Obama relies hugely on that. That’s not to say, I don’t, I still support

him, but I don’t like that fascistic, I like him not for the fascistic elements of his candidacy, which I

think are profound.”’ (Michael Roston, “Slate editor calls Obama speech style ‘fascistic,’“

(Rawstory, February 4, 2008) An untenable position, we note in passing, since fascism, once

identified, must surely be opposed.

DIALECTIC OF HOPE AND DESPAIR IN FASCISM

FROM MUSSOLINI TO OBAMA

One of the most reliable indications of Obama’s fascist ideology can be found in his obsessive

preoccupation with the theme of “hope.” One of the staples of fascist demagogy from Mussolini to

Hitler, and especially in the latter, is a constant attempt to mobilize the latent and conscious despair

of the target audiences into a form of frenzied activism or flight forward in the service of the Fascist

party and the fascist cause. One of the favorite themes of National Socialist propaganda was the

idea that Hitler represented the last hope of the despairing masses after the torments of World War

I, the great hyperinflation of 1923, and the great deflationary depression starting in 1929. This

theme was used in some of the NSDAP’s most effective posters. In Obama’s case, his ability to

appeal to the despair of his followers is significantly enhanced by his own existentialist background,

as indicated by his interest during his college years in the existentialist-terrorist works of Frantz

Fanon. As has already been mentioned, a thoroughgoing existentialist is in grave danger of sliding

into fascism under the impact of a social crisis including military defeat and acute economic

XI: Obama as Social Fascist 395

depression, as was seen in the case of the leading European existentialist, Martin Heidegger, who

became an active Nazi propagandist. Every day, existentialists and other radical irrationalist

subjectivists who have been supporting Obama are sliding towards fascism like passengers

careening down the steeply sloping decks of the Titanic in its last throes.

Once again it is Georg Lukacs who, pre-eminently among the historians of European

philosophy, has pointed to the intimate interface between radical existentialism and fascism.

Lukacs writes: ‘no matter how distorted the presentation may be because of the solipsism of the

phenomenological method, we are dealing with a social fact: the internal situation of the bourgeois

individual (especially the intellectual) in the crumbling world of monopoly capital, faced by the

perspective of annihilation. Heidegger’s despair thus has a dual character: on the one side the

implacable exposure of the inner nothingness of the individual in the crisis period of imperialism;

on the other hand — because the social causes of this nothingness are fetishized away as timeless

factors having nothing to do with the social situation — the resulting feelings can very easily kick

over into a despairing reactionary activity. It is surely no coincidence that Hitler’s agitation

continuously appealed to despair. Of course, this mainly addressed the economic-social situation of

the working masses. In the case of the intelligentsia, this mood of nothingness and despair, whose

subjective validity constitutes the starting point for Heidegger’s philosophy, and which he elevates

to the conceptual level, transfigures into philosophy and canonizes as ‘authentic,” represents the

most fertile soil for the effectiveness of Hitler’s mass agitation.’ (Lukacs 441)

Existentialism, reinforced by the postmodern consensus in the Anglo-American academic world

frequented by Obama, represents a perfect culture medium for the postmodern fascist mentality.

The general nature of this dynamic was already clear many decades ago: “Agnostic irrationalism…

has as its final result a passionate rejection of objective truth of the same type that we see in Hitler

with other motives and with other justifications. In the interface between existentialist irrationalism

and the fascist world outlook we are not dealing with individual epistemological findings…but

rather with a general intellectual atmosphere of radical doubt about the possibility of objective

knowledge, about the value of reason and understanding, and with a blind belief in intuition-based,

irrational ‘revelations’ that contradict reason and understanding. We are dealing with an atmosphere

of hysterical-superstitious gullibility, in which the obscurantism of a struggle against objective

truths, against understanding and reason, is presented as the last word of modern science and of the

most ‘progressive’ epistemology.” (Lukacs 633) These considerations should help make clear why

he Obama personally finds the postmodern fascist outlook to be congenial and coherent with his

general attitude towards life. As has already been shown, Michelle Obama represents an even more

militant version of this same fundamental worldview.

A DISTANT MIRROR: THE PEACE FASCISM OF SIR OSWALD MOSELEY

One large difficulty in evaluating Obama as a postmodern fascist comes from the present-day

tendency to identify fascism almost totally with militarism and military aggression. Obama has

called successfully for the bombing of northern Pakistan, although most of his followers seem to be

unable to comprehend his role in this regard. Of course, fascist movements, once they were well

established and consolidated, did tend overwhelmingly towards military aggression. But this does

not tell us anything about what these movements looked like in their earliest phases, before they had

taken power and before they were in a position to start military adventures. There is also the

problem of fascist movements in countries like Great Britain and France, who had been among the

winners of World War I. These fascist movements did not take power, but might have done so

396 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

under slightly different circumstances. In order to evaluate the Obama phenomenon of 2008, we

must realize that overt jingoistic militarism is not necessary for fascism to arise.

Many assume that all fascists must necessarily be first and foremost aggressive warmongers, but

this is not necessarily the case. As one scholar has noted, “most fascist parties in stable, prosperous

western European countries with mature colonial empires preached a kind of ‘peace fascism,’

unlike their counterparts in central and eastern Europe.”217 Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism,

1914-1945 [Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1995], 298 Stanley G. Payne

elaborates on the question of fascism and militaristic aggression as follows: “Fascism is usually said

to have been expansionist and imperialist by definition, but this is not clear from a reading of

diverse fascist programs. Most were indeed imperialist, but all types of political movements and

systems have produced imperialist policies, while several fascist movements had little interest in or

even rejected new imperial ambitions. Those which appeared in satisfied national or imperialist

states were generally defensive rather than aggressive. All, however, sought a new order in foreign

affairs, a new relationship or set of alliances with respect to contemporary states and forces, and a

new status for their nations in Europe and the world. Some were frankly oriented towards war,

while others merely prized military values but projected no plans for aggression abroad. The latter

sometimes sought a place of cultural hegemony or other nonmilitary forms of leadership.” (Payne

11) If we insert soft power and subversion after cultural hegemony, we may be close to

understanding the postmodern fascist ideology of a possible Obama regime.

Examples of “peace fascism” included the French Parti Populaire Français, originally a protofascist

formation which emerged from the defeat of the mass strike upsurge of June 1936, the

biggest strike wave in France before 1968. The PPF grew in reaction to the socialist-communist

popular front regime of Léon Blum, which soon disappointed its own left-wing followers. This PPF

received “considerable financial backing from big business interests, which sought to encourage a

popular nationalist and anti-communist force. The chef or leader was Jacques Doriot, a former

communist. “The new state envisaged by the PPF was to be ‘popular’ and authoritarian but

decentralized, honoring the family, the community, and the region, with the latter being strongly

emphasized.” The PPF had its own approach to reforming broken souls: “PPF propagandists did

encourage an activist and vitalist philosophy and the creation of an homme nouveau (new man), and

the movement drew the support of some accomplished fascistic intellectuals like Pierre Drieu

LaRochelle.” (Payne 298) The PPF shows that it is possible to be fascist and anti-war at the same

time: “…though the PPF preached vitalism and activism, together with the military virtues, it was –

like all the French nationalist groups from the fascists of Bucard to the most conservative – a ‘peace

party’ that discouraged talk of war and sought no particular territorial aggrandizement for France.”

(Payne 298)

To see what fascism looked like in the English speaking world during the 1930s, we have the

case of Sir Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists, which was formed in 1932 and was

banned by the government when the Second World War began in 1939. British fascism was not

explicitly pro-war: “Like other fascist movements in satisfied imperial powers, the BUF never

preached war and expansion, but peace and prosperity. Mosley was obsessed with overcoming

social, economic, and cultural decadence, and he believed that only the disciplined nationalism and

new cultural dynamism of a fascism on the Italian model could achieve it.” Also like Obama, the

BUF embraced corporatist solutions for the world economic crisis of the Great Depression: “The

BUF was one of the most thoroughly programmatic of all fascist movements, with elaborate

corporatist economic proposals. Its thrust was decidedly modernist, paying serious attention to

economic theory and concepts of ‘scientific production,’ while also espousing equal pay for women.

XI: Obama as Social Fascist 397

The BUF also preached vitalism and the Shavian superman [i.e., the superman concept of the

playwright and essayist George Bernard Shaw], while stressing Britain’s civilizing and imperial

mission in the world ‘to rescue great nations from decadence, and march together towards a higher

and nobler order of civilization.’” (Payne 305) Strip away this imperial rhetoric and replace it with

Obama’s Afrocentric multicultural relativism, and the similarities are striking.

PALINGENESIS: THE FASCIST QUEST FOR UTOPIA

Fascism has been described by some writers as being “palingenetic,” meaning that it represents

an attempt to launch a rebirth of the national spirit, culture, and society. (Payne 5) Fascism

generally proposes to do this through a form of cultural populism which rejects ideology, rejects

parliamentary methods, and claims to merge the interests of different social and economic classes

under the heading of national unity. It was always concerned with promoting and fostering mass

mobilization for national goals.

In 2003, Dr. Lawrence Brit listed “Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism,” with the

implication that they established that the Bush administration was a fascist regime. This list has

been widely read and reproduced on the internet. Brit’s characteristics of fascism include powerful

and continuing nationalism; disdain for the recognition of human rights; identification of

enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause; supremacy of the military; rampant sexism; controlled

mass media; obsession with national security; religion and government intertwined; corporate

power protected; labor power suppressed; disdain for intellectuals and the arts; obsession with crime

and punishment; rampant corruption and cronyism; and fraudulent elections. This list captures some

aspects of a consolidated and established fascist society, but it misses others totally or even turns

them on their head. Take for example the supremacy of the military: Hitler’s entire dictatorship

contradicts the ideas that professional military people should direct wars: supreme power was kept

in Hitler’s own hands, to the point that the German Army tried to assassinate him, and he retaliated

by liquidating many of the most famous commanders, including Rommel. Key traditionalist

members of the German General Staff like Halder were ousted or forced to kow-tow to Nazi hacks

and yes-men like Keitel and Zeitzler. Or again: disdain for intellectuals and the arts would hardly

apply to Italian fascism, which was founded in part by leading writers, sculptors, architects, and

artists like D’Annunzio and Marinetti. Other characteristics listed by Brit would apply to many

kinds of dictatorships and authoritarian governments, and not just fascist ones.218

CONFUSION ABOUT FASCIST MASS MOVEMENTS

An attempt to obscure the real nature of fascism as an anti-establishment, anti-parliamentary

mass movement came from the former CIA employee Ray McGovern. McGovern was one of those

left-liberal personalities who had stubbornly refused to go beyond the CIA’s blowback theory of

9/11 to examine the more realistic alternative explanations of the MIHOP school.219 In the March-

April 2008, McGovern authored an article entitled “History’s Lessons: Creeping Fascism – Lessons

from the Past.” (consortiumnews.com) Here McGovern presented the question of fascism solely and

exclusively as a problem of top-down police state measures, with no reference whatsoever to

historical fascism as a mass movement of idealistic students, goons, and guttersnipes backed by

financiers and operating under anti-politician and anti-establishment cover. Fascism for McGovern

was a matter of Bush’s violation of the FISA wiretap law and similar top-down measures.

Interestingly, McGovern cited the late, notorious, British agent of German nationality, Sebastian

Haffner. Haffner had written about the National Socialist seizure of power in 1933, criticizing the

398 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

“sheepish submissiveness” and the “cowardly treachery” of the labor-based Social Democratic

Party. Haffner found that “it is in the final analysis only that betrayal [by the Social Democrats] that

explains the almost inexplicable fact that a great nation, which cannot have consisted entirely of

cowards, fell into ignominy without a fight.” But it is very easy for modern-day left liberals with

CIA connections to fault the German labor politicians of 75 years ago. Haffner did not mention that

his British paymasters had thrown their support to Hitler, as in the case of Lady Astor and her

Cliveden Set. What can we say of Howard Dean, Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Ted Kennedy, and the

other rotten Democratic politicians who have rushed to support postmodern fascism in the form of

the Obama campaign long before any seizure of power? The modern American politicians do not

fare well in this comparison.

THE MASS MOVEMENT IS CRITICAL FOR THE ADVENT OF FASCISM

A more basic objection to Brit’s entire approach is that this method might be some use for a

dreamer or time traveler who suddenly woke up or landed in a given society and wanted to know if

that society were fascist. But that is not our problem. In practice, the only way to enter a fascist

society is through the successful activity of a fascist mass movement, and it is here that the

characteristics listed by Brit not only fail utterly, but actually become dangerously misleading. The

only way real fascism has ever been created is through an irrationalist, demagogic, antiparliamentary

mass movement or reasonable facsimile thereof, stressing togetherness and the

negation of class struggle and partisan haggling. Such movements have seen heavy representation

of fervently idealistic young students, unemployed workers, artists and intellectuals, disgruntled

veterans and crazed petty bourgeois (like bankrupt stock brokers, real estate agents, and salesmen).

Many of the first fascists have generally been leftists, or political neophytes with little ideological

coloration. Brit’s total omission of any mention of the fascist mass movement makes his list a factor

of confusion and disorientation among many left liberals and libertarians today, who continue in

many cases to imagine that fascism is a purely top-down phenomenon, when in reality it is the

grass-roots and protest movement aspects of fascism which constitute its essence and make it so

menacing. Brit may be describing Italy in 1938, when the regime had become consolidated and

fossilized, but he is not saying anything worthwhile about Italy in 1919-1922, when fascism was

clawing its way to power in society. He may have some insights into Germany in 1938, but not

Germany in 1929-1933, when fascism was struggling to seize power.

Once again, there is simply no comparison between just another bourgeois regime, no matter

how bellicose, no matter how corrupt, no matter how oppressive, and the leap into the abyss of

fascism. Payne distinguishes among fascists (the German Nazi party and the Italian National Fascist

Party), the radical right (Hugenburg, Chancellor von Papen, and the Stahlhelm organization in

Germany, and the Italian Nationalist Association in Italy), and the conservative right (President

Hindenburg and Chancellors Brüning and von Schleicher in Germany, and Prime Ministers Sonino

and Salandra in Italy). Payne attempts to describe the resulting confusion in the following terms:

“Comparative analysis of fascist-type movements has been rendered more complex, and often more

confused, by a common tendency to identify these movements with more conservative and rightist

forms of authoritarian nationalism in the interwar period and after. The fascist movements

represented the most extreme expression of modern European nationalism, yet they were not

synonymous with all authoritarian nationalist groups. The latter were pluriform and highly diverse,

and in their typology they extended well beyond or fell well short of fascism, diverging from it in

fundamental ways. The confusion between fascist movements in particular and authoritarian

nationalist groups in general stems from the fact that the heyday of fascism coincided with a general

XI: Obama as Social Fascist 399

era of political authoritarianism that on the eve of World War II had in one form or another seized

control of the political institutions of most European countries. It would be grossly inaccurate to

argue that this process proceeded independent of fascism, but neither was it merely synonymous

with fascism.” (Payne 14-15) In other words, top-down dictatorship and fascist seizure of power by

a grass roots radical movement of street fighters are emphatically not the same thing and should not

be confused. Although Brit’s list was valuable is prodding many people to think about fascism in

relation to current US reality, we must stress here that any notion that the Bush regime already

represented fascism would be dangerously wrong. Bush has no mass movement and will never have

one. Imagine Bush attempting a Mussolini balcony speech to an oceanic crowd of millions of

screaming fanatics. It has not happened and will not happen. With Obama, by contrast, the mob

oration is the very essence of his agitation. His supporters are not asked to endorse a program of

government; they are required to surrender themselves to the will of the Perfect Master, and they are

rushing to do it by the millions.

OBAMA FULFULLS THE FASCIST MINIMUM

In 1992, the Italian writer Emilio Gentile formulated a list of 10 detailed points in an attempt to

arrive at an orientative definition of fascism.220 He was working towards a minimum common

denominator of fascist movements across Europe and the world. Let us use these points as a kind of

scorecard to evaluate to what degree Obama and his movement can be fairly classified as fascist.

1. “A mass movement with a multi-class membership in which prevail, among the leaders and

militants, the middle sectors, in large part in new to political activity, organized as a party

militia, that bases its identity not on social hierarchy or class origin, but on the sense of

comradeship, believes itself invested with a mission of national regeneration, considers

itself in a state of war against political adversaries and aims at conquering a monopoly of

political power by using terror, parliamentary tactics, and deals with leading groups, to

create a new regime that destroys parliamentary democracy.”

The Obama movement aims at seizing the presidency and does not speak of a total

seizure of power, but Obama hints at pervasive control of individual life, including the cars

people drive, the food people eat, and the setting of the thermostats in their homes. It is

generally understood that the motivation for these totalitarian interventions will be based on

the Malthusian demagogy of the Al Gore global warming-climate change fraud. As for a

state of war and violence against political adversaries, there has been little violence so far,

but the venom and inflammatory rhetoric directed against political adversaries, especially

Senator Clinton, represent an extraordinary phenomenon in American politics. Al Gore’s

Green Army and Obama’s own Green Corps and grandiose plans for volunteer

organizations substantially fulfill the party militia requirement.

2. “An ‘anti-ideological’ and pragmatic ideology that proclaims itself anti-materialist, antiindividualist,

anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, is populist and anti-capitalist in

tendency, expresses itself aesthetically, more than theoretically, by means of a new political

style and by myths, rites, and symbols as a lay religion designed to acculturate, socialize,

and integrate the faith of the masses with the goal of creating a ‘new man.’“

Obama is certainly anti-democratic, since he wants to ignore the primary elections in

Michigan and in Florida. He is anti-materialist, as seen in his own and Michelle Obama’s

veiled calls for austerity and sacrifice. Michelle also refers to the need for people to

transform themselves as individuals under an Obama presidency, which raises the question

400 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

of the new man. Anti-Marxism is not a central issue for Obama’s followers, but Obama has

been thoroughly exposed to Marxist ideology and certainly does resolutely reject any

politics of class defense, class conflict, or class-based organization. The new political

liturgy of the Obama Nuremberg rally campaign style has attracted wide attention.

3. “A culture founded on mystical thought and the tragic and activist sense of life conceived as

the manifestation of the will to power, on the myth of youth as artificer of history, and on

the exaltation of the militarization of politics as the model of life and collective activity.”

The feckless and callow youth fanatics who fill the ranks of Obama’s lemming legions

have been widely discussed. Their mystical outlook is that of New Age, Age of Aquarius,

etc., as purveyed by a thousand petty hucksters from Oprah Winfrey to a whole phalanx of

swamis. The militarization aspect is present in the Al Gore Green Army proposal as well as

in Obama’s own Green Corps, and it can be expected that these features will be further

accentuated as the economic crisis deepens.

4. “A totalitarian conception of the primacy of politics, conceived as an integrating experience

to carry out the fusion of the individual and the masses in the organic and mystical unity of

the nation as an ethnic and moral community, adopting measures of discrimination and

persecution against those considered to be outside this community, either as enemies of the

regime or members of races considered inferior or otherwise dangerous for the integrity of

the nation.”

Obama operates within the totally relativistic concept of multiculturalism which has

been favored by the US ruling elite as a counterinsurgency strategy over the last four

decades, as we have shown. But relativistic multiculturalism is already distorted within

Obama’s own thinking by the aggressive and militant Afrocentrism and Black liberation

theology purveyed by his mentors, including the foundation-funded racist provocateur

Jeremiah Wright and his co-thinkers. So far, Obama has been deeply associated with

spokesman for white collective guilt and the need reparations to be paid to the black

community alone because of slavery and discrimination in the past, which amounts to

discrimination or persecution against other ethnic groups. At least two factors, however,

suggest that this may be destined to change. One is the indifference or hostility to Obama

exhibited by Hispanic and Asian voters, which may point to conflicts ahead. Obama is of

course a creature of the Trilateral Commission, where one of the leading planners is Samuel

Huntington, Brzezinski’s subaltern in the Carter National Security Council. In Huntington’s

infamous tome, The Clash of Civilizations, he argued that Latin America, precisely because

it was thoroughly Spanish and Catholic, could not be considered as a part of Western

civilization, but had to be viewed as a separate Latino-Hispanic entity all its own. This

thesis is so wildly absurd and ridiculous from a historical point of view that Huntington’s

evil intent could not have been more obvious. Huntington’s 2004 book Who Are We?

developed this same crackpot racist theory further, arguing that the greatest threat to the

future of the United States came from Latin American and especially Mexican immigrants.

Huntington thus appears to be thinking in terms of a divide-and-conquer strategy to

maintain financier rule in the United States under conditions of aggravated depression

breakdown crisis in which nativism will play a decisive role: this would allow the white and

black population to be played off against the rapidly growing Hispanic component. Obama,

needless to say, is already well-positioned to lead such an anti-Hispanic and anti-Asian

XI: Obama as Social Fascist 401

backlash. Senator Clinton, by contrast, enjoys broad support among Hispanics and Asians

and would not be suitable for the strategy Huntington appears to have in mind.

5. “A civil ethic founded on total dedication to the national community, on discipline, virility,

comradeship, and the warrior spirit.”

The element of communitarianism and comradeship in of Obama’s rhetoric has been

widely noted and is very strong, even though the militaristic and warrior elements have

been relatively muted. More regimentation, however, can be expected as the notions of the

Gore Green Army/Green Corps began to take hold under depression conditions. In addition,

we should bear in mind the precedents for “peace fascism” in countries like France and

Great Britain.

6. “A single state party that has the task of providing for the armed defense of the regime,

selecting its directing cadres, and organizing the masses within the state in a process of

permanent mobilization of emotion and faith.”

So far Obama has not talked about a one-party state. However, one of the most

powerful components in the intelligence community coalition that is backing Obama is

indeed National Endowment for Democracy, which represents a fusion of the Democratic

Party and the Republican Party, and can to that extent be regarded as the harbinger for a de

facto one-party state. In addition, if Obama were to seize the White House thanks in all

probability to a series of scandals conveniently timed to destroy his Republican opponent in

the general election, the likely simultaneous heavy Republican losses in the Congress might

produce a situation where a decimated Republican minority would be unable to block or

delay legislation, provided that the Obama at White House and the Democratic

Congressional leadership concurred. Such a situation, although perhaps temporary (barring

the declaration of martial law by Obama under some pretext), would already begin to

approximate the workings of a one-party state in practice.

7. “A police apparatus that prevents, controls, and represses dissidents and opposition, even by

using organized terror.”

Obama’s successful Senate campaign in Illinois in 2004 was based entirely on the timely

intervention of domestic police state forces to eliminate his Democratic primary opponent,

Marson Blair Hull, and then his Republican general election opponent, Jack Ryan. In 2008,

the FBI carried out a sensational Gestapo operation against Governor Eliot Spitzer of New

York State, who was a leading opponent of the Wall Street finance oligarchs and their

abuses, and was also a Democratic Party super delegate pledged to support Mrs. Clinton.

Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska had been under investigation for a long time, but his

indictment in late July 2008 was timed perfectly to signal that the ruling class wanted the

Republicans out and Barky and Pelosi in power. Another instance is the strange death of

Deborah Palfrey, the so-called DC Madam, which was immediately classified as a suicide

with the help of the dubious Dan Moldea, who claimed that the death was a suicide. The

attack on Kwame Kilpatrick, the black mayor of Detroit, may fit into a pattern of FBI

operations designed to intimidate black elected officials in the framework of the infamous

Frühmenschen program. Some observers concluded that some Democratic superdelegates

were being blackmailed by the FBI to secure their support for Obama, the darling of the

winning faction of the intelligence community. It is widely believed that these secret police

interventions are coordinated with Obama’s backers for the purpose of effectively

402 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

terrorizing his political opponents. Obama critic Larry Sinclair was arrested at the close of

his June 18, 2008 National Press Club appearance on the basis of a politically motivated

warrant signed by Beau Biden, the Attorney General of Delaware. This was an enemies’ list

operation that went beyond anything Richard Nixon had attempted as a candidate. There are

also some signs that Obama may be preparing an attempt to purge and police the internet

for thought crime against the Perfect Master. On June 8, 2008, the New York Times wrote

that Obama’s retainers had declared war on freedom of speech on the internet: “One area in

particular where Mr. Obama is adding muscle is a team that is tasked with tracking down

rumors and erroneous statements circulated on the Internet. The growth of the Internet,

which has been a fabulous asset for helping to build the Obama community, is also a place

where erroneous e-mails live,” said Anita Dunn, a senior campaign adviser. “That’s a

challenge I don’t think previous campaigns have had to deal with to the extent that the

Obama campaign has.” The Obama campaign is already reputed to have deployed an army

of between 500 and 1500 internet trolls to spread slander and defamation of Obama’s critics

on the internet, countering revelations about the mystery candidate Obama with cascades of

obscene abuse and threats. These trolls have generated spamming charges as a means of

shutting down anti-Obama blogs. Many of these pro-Obama mercenary bloggers are said to

reside in Gaza, where they are organized to work at coolie wages by Obama’s friends in the

Hamas regime there. Others are said to operate out of Bangalore, India, and other third

world internet sweatshops. The many ungrammatical postings by pro-Obama scribblers

who are obviously not native speakers of American English strongly suggest that these

reports are accurate.

8. “A political system organized by a hierarchy of functions named from the top and crowned

by the figure of the ‘leader,’ invested with a sacred charisma, who commands, directs, and

coordinates the activities of the party and the regime.”

From the time he came on the scene, Obama has always been presented as the Messiah,

the Savior, the anointed one, and the Perfect Master, The One most emphatically endowed

with sacred charisma. The highly centralized and hierarchical qualities of the Obama

campaign have generally not been visible to the public, but they have been dominant behind

the scenes, where the political hack Axelrod has acted as a brutal and unscrupulous

enforcer, reportedly threatening whistleblowers like Larry Sinclair, shutting down websites

and My Space pages which the campaign could not control, and ejecting persons attending

Obama rallies if they departed from the strict Obama party line.

9. “A corporate organization of the economy that suppresses trade union liberty, broadens the

sphere of state intervention, and seeks to achieve, by principles of technocracy and

solidarity, the collaboration of the ‘productive sectors’ under the control of the regime, to

achieve its goals of power, yet preserving private property and class divisions.”

During Obama’s career as a foundation-funded poverty pimp, he sought to organize

ghetto victims into corporatist community development corporations under the pretext of

creating a few jobs, but really for the purpose of neutralizing their antiestablishment

political potential. He now proposes to do this on a national scale. In the current phrase,

the Obama campaign has embraced corporatism in the form the Rohatyn-Rudman National

Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank, an idea which descends from Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler’s

finance Minister. At the same time, Obama makes clear his rejection of the New Deal by

pledging to be more respectful of “the market” than Senator Clinton.

XI: Obama as Social Fascist 403

10. “A foreign policy inspired by the theme of national power and greatness, with the goal of

imperialist expansion.” (Payne 5-6, n. 6)

One of Obama’s favorite themes is that the international prestige and power of the

United States have sharply declined because of the reckless and incompetent policies of the

Bush administration. Obama explicitly proposes to restore the world standing of the United

States, including through such initiatives as the indiscriminate bombing of certain parts of

Pakistan without the permission of the Musharraf government, allegedly in order to pursue

the mythical Osama bin Laden. These are thinly veiled proposals to administer a cosmetic,

public-relations facelift to the widely discredited forces of Anglo-American imperialism,

and to give them a new lease on life on the world scene.

Other characteristics of fascist movements which have received wide attention include the

“espousal of an idealistic, vitalist and voluntaristic philosophy, normally involving the attempt to

realize a new, modern, self-determined, and secular culture.” This corresponds closely to the “Yes

we can!” and “Si se puede” chants which are indispensable components of the typical Obama rally.

As we can see, Obama may not completely fulfill each and every point in this highly articulated

definition of a common basis of fascist movements during the time between the two world wars of

the last century. Nevertheless, Obama does fulfill a very large proportion of these criteria, more so

than any politician seen in the United States in the last half-century. Obama’s relation to fascism is

much too close for comfort, especially when we take into account the numerous areas where

Obama’s agitation presents proto-fascist precursor forms, seed crystals, and signs pointing towards

imminent fascist developments in the near future. We must also recall that the fascism required by

the crisis ridden Anglo-American imperialism of the early 21st century will necessarily diverge in

certain critical areas from the fascism that was appropriate for the needs of the Italian or German

finance oligarchs of the inter war period.

It is also important to recall that Italian fascism, especially in its earlier phases, was relatively

free of race theory and anti-Semitism. For Mussolini, the main vehicle for fascist activity was the

totalitarian state, and not any concept of race. Later, when Mussolini became an ally of Hitler,

elements of the Nazi approach to race were incorporated into Italian laws and political life. In other

words, the notion of fascism without significant elements of anti-Semitism (at least initially) would

not represent in any way a radical departure from the main historical models and prototypes of

fascism.

All fascist movements were set apart from other political formations by the tremendous stress

they placed on the liturgical, symbolic, and aesthetic elements of politics. As Payne writes, “The

novel atmosphere of fascist meetings struck many observers during the 1920s and 1930s. All mass

movements employ symbols and various emotive effects, and it might be difficult to establish that

the symbolic structure of fascist meetings was entirely different from that of other revolutionary

groups. What seemed clearly distinct, however, was the great emphasis on meetings, marches,

visual symbols, and ceremonial or liturgical rituals, given a centrality and function in fascist activity

which went beyond that found in the left revolutionary movements. The goal was to envelop the

participant in a mystique and community of ritual that appealed to the aesthetic and the spiritual

sense as well as the political. This has aptly been called a theatrical politics, but it went beyond

mere spectacle towards the creation of a normative aesthetics… More than any other new force of

the early 20th century, fascism responded to the contemporary era as above all a ‘visual age’ to be

dominated by a visual culture.” (Payne 12-13) Lukacs noted that a hallmark of fascism was the

aesthetization of politics, which he proposed to counter with a politicization of aesthetics.

404 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

FASCISM AS HATRED OF WOMEN

Given the Obama campaign’s systematic vilification of Senator Clinton, Chelsea Clinton,

Geraldine Ferraro, and many others as women, it is interesting and significant to find that contempt

for women was a common characteristic of fascist movements. As Payne writes, “Another

fundamental characteristic was extreme insistence on what is now termed male chauvinism and the

tendency to exaggerate the masculine principle in almost every aspect of activity.” This aspect of

fascism has been termed “radical misogyny or flight from the feminine, manifesting itself in a

pathological fear of being engulfed by anything in external reality associated with softness, with

dissolution, or the uncontrollable.” In Payne’s view, “No other kind of movement expressed such

complete horror at the slightest suggestion of androgyny.” Part of the problem was perhaps bit more

than a few of the German fascist leaders were themselves closet homosexuals, as in the case of

Ernst Röhm, the leader of the SA Brown Shirts, and one of Hitler’s most formidable rivals for

leadership of the National Socialist movement. Obama has been widely accused of the Internet of

being a secret bisexual. His attempt at bowling before the Pennsylvania primary called forth such

epithets as prissy, dainty, effete, and languid from media observers, with the Wonkette blog asking,

“If he bowls like a fag, does that mean he is one?”

FASCISM AS YOUTH CULT

The Obama campaign has been described by commentators as a youth movement, although there

appears to be some question about how accurate this is. If this is true, it is yet another strong

similarity between Obama and the earlier fascists. Payne writes: “Fascist exaltation of the youth

was unique, however, in that it not only made a special appeal to them but also exalted youth over

all other generations, without exception, and to a greater degree than any other force based itself on

generational conflict. This no doubt stemmed in part from the lateness of fascism and the

identification of the established forces, including much of the left, with leaders and members from

the older, pre-war generation. It also stemmed in part from the organic concept of the nation and of

youth as its new life force, and from the predominance of youth in struggle and militarization.”

(Payne 13-14)

Even though fascist ideology was populist, the visible leadership structure of fascist movements

was overwhelmingly elitist, to say nothing of the bankers and financiers who provided the

indispensable cash support for these demagogic political formations. As Payne notes, many

sociologists have pointed out that “nearly all parties and movements depend on elites and leadership

but some recognize the fact more explicitly and carry it to greater lengths. The most unique feature

of fascism in this regard was the way in which it combined populism and elitism. The appeal to the

entire people and nation, together with the attempts to incorporate the masses in both the structure

and myth, was accompanied by a strong formal emphasis on the role and function of an elite, which

was held to be both uniquely fascist and indispensable to any achievement.” (Payne 14)

Today in the United States it is stubbornly assumed that fascism must always be an extreme

right-wing movement, but this is far from an accurate description of the genesis of fascism. Italian

fascism was the prototype for all other fascism, and was extremely influential internationally, and

Italian fascism was initially much more of a left wing phenomenon than a right-wing one. The

important fact to remember is that Italian leftists had played a very important role in efforts to have

Italy intervene in World War I on the side of the British and French, and this made left wing

nationalism a potent and aggressive force after the war had ended.

XI: Obama as Social Fascist 405

Benito Mussolini, in some ways the inventor of fascism and the first fascist dictator, was

anything but a typical right-wing reactionary. He was born in 1883 in the Romagna, an area of Italy

which was noted for its radical, left-wing and anti-Roman Catholic politics. His parents admired the

Mexican leader, Benito Juarez, for whom they named their son. Mussolini was an elementary

school teacher and a leading member of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI). He worked as a newspaper

editor in the city of Trieste, which at that time was part of the Austrian Empire; he was expelled by

the Austrians because of his militant Italian nationalist viewpoint. He was part of the self-styled

revolutionary and anti-reformist leadership group which took control over the PSI in 1912. At this

time he and his associates received the enthusiastic endorsement of no less a personage than the

Russian revolutionary leader V. I. Lenin, who shared Mussolini’s dislike for parliamentary

methods. Mussolini became the editor of the PSI daily newspaper, Avanti! Mussolini broke with the

PSI official line of anti-militarism and non-interventionism after the start of World War I; in mid-

November 1914, he launched his own newspaper, called Il Popolo d’Italia, with money from the

British, the French, and from the arms manufacturers and other pro-war business interests. This new

daily paper campaigned incessantly for Italy to enter the war on the side of Britain and France. In

May 1915, Mussolini helped to organize the Radiant May (maggio radioso), a series of

demonstrations in Rome designed among other things to attempt to discredit former Prime Minister

Giolitti, the main moderate conservative nationalist, and to intimidate the parliament into declaring

war, which soon occurred.

MUSSOLINI FOUNDS ITALIAN FASCISM, MILAN, MARCH 23, 1919

The foundation of the first Italian fascist organization is widely agreed to have occurred in

Piazza San Sepolcro in Milan on March 23, 1919 with the creation of a new revolutionary

nationalist movement called the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento (very roughly, Italian fighting

groups) at a meeting attended by some 200 persons. The majority of those present were either

leftists or former leftists who had gone over to more nationalistic agitation. The participants in this

landmark meeting would largely be drawn from four distinct groups. The first were revolutionary

syndicalists and national syndicalists, people we might today call extremely aggressive trade union

militants with anarchist, antistate (or “libertarian”) and anti-politician overtones. There were a

number of former members of the Italian Socialist Party who had left that party in order to support

Italian entry into World War I. Among these was Mussolini himself. A third important group were

the Futurists, who were members and political supporters of an important school of visual arts and

literature, sometimes also called the cubo-futurists. We can think of these people as avant-garde

painters, writers, and composers; the most famous of them was Marinetti. A fourth and final group

were the arditi, veterans of the special forces commando units of the Italian Army during World

War I. Many of them still wore their distinctive black uniforms, and this launched the idea of

fascism as black-shirts, giving rise to the notion of fascism as a shirt movement with each national

group favoring shirts of a special color. The majority of the participants were between 20 and 40

years of age, and the largest single professional group represented were the writers and journalists –

quite possibly the media whores of the day. The creative class, as we can see, turned out in force to

help found fascism. Mussolini described this new group as an “anti-party,” and criticized

customary political methods as rigid and sterile. The program of this new group has been described

as “basically leftist, sometimes revolutionary,” and is a far cry from what organized fascism later

advocated. It was in any case a program explicitly presented in support of Italian imperialism. At

this early phase, Mussolini was primarily concerned with recruiting large numbers politically naïve

young people from the widest possible area of the left and the center. “The Fasci were in fact

neither fish nor fowl, nationalist but leftist….” (Payne 89 ff.)

406 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

D’ANNUNZIO’S FASCIST PILOT PROJECT IN FIUME, 1919-1920

If Mussolini was gaining the support of Marinetti, the most famous Italian painter, the most

famous Italian poet, the decadent Gabriele D’Annunzio, was creating his own separate pilot project

for fascism. D’Annunzio, joined by several thousand disgruntled war veterans and fervently

idealistic students, seized control of the city of Fiume on the Adriatic Sea near Italy’s eastern

border, where he functioned as the ruler of a quasi-independent city state for some 15 months.

D’Annunzio’s constitution for Fiume took the form “a relatively democratic structure of

corporatism” which strove to be three things — “corporatist, nationalist, and nominally

democratic.” (Payne 92-93) It was under these partially leftist auspices that D’Annunzio elaborated

much of what was to become a typical fascist aesthetic: “…D’Annunzio succeeded in creating a

new style of political liturgy made up of elaborate uniforms, special ceremonies, and chants, with

speeches from the balcony of city hall to massed audiences in the form of a dialogue with the

leader. In other key contributions to what soon became ‘fascist style,’ D’Annunzio and his

followers adopted the black shirts of the arditi as their uniform, employed the Romans salute of

raising the right arm, developed mass rallies, brought out the hymn Giovinezza (Youth), organized

their armed militia precisely into units, and developed a series of special chants and symbols.”

(Payne 92)

The marked left wing tendencies of Italian fascism began to disappear towards the end of 1920

and the beginning of 1921, but some of these elements persisted well into the late summer of 1921.

As late as May 1921, Mussolini “was still thinking of the possibility that the movement would

crystallize in a possible ‘Fascist Labor Party’ or ‘National Labor Party.’ On May 22 he announced

that the republicanism of the Fasci must be accentuated and raised the possibility of a new

agreement with the Socialists — assuming they would shed their internationalism and class

revolutionism…. Mussolini… still could not imagine taking a categorically anti-leftist position.”

Mussolini had to jettison his “lingering leftist loyalties” before he could create the National Fascist

Party (PNF) in November 1921. (Payne 99-101) it was only in the early 1922 that Mussolini

announced that “il mondo va a destra” – the world is turning right, while parliamentary democracy

and socialism were in decline. The 20th century, Mussolini argued, would be an aristocratic

century dominated by new elites — notions which are not alien to Obama’s elitist and anti-blue

collar supporters today.

One more phase of Il Duce’s career deserves attention, and that is the final phase. Mussolini was

ousted as dictator of Italy in July 1943, and was imprisoned on a mountain in southern Italy called

the Gran Sasso d’Italia. He was rescued by Otto Skorzeny and his SS commandos and taken behind

the German lines. Here Mussolini created a German-controlled puppet state in northern Italy which

called itself the Italian Social Republic (RSI). This regime turned out to be much more radical than

anything the Duce had tried during his 20-year dictatorship in Rome. The RSI, also known as the

Salò republic after the small town which was its nominal capital, introduced corporatist selfmanagement

by workers acting through assemblies and councils. The old National Fascist Party

(PNF) was re-baptized as the Revolutionary Fascist Party. According to one commentator, “This

represented Mussolini’s revenge against the bourgeoisie and the rightist elite whom he believed had

thwarted fascism.” Ernst Nolte, one of the leading theoreticians of fascism, felt that Mussolini had

remained in many ways a Marxist as long as he lived: “The finalità [goal] of Marxism continued to

live in him, even if he was not aware of it.” (Payne 413) In sum, it can hardly be denied that leftism

and fascism cannot be seen as polar opposites or incompatible impulses, but must rather be regarded

as inextricably intertwined. The implications for the Obama phenomenon are obvious and ominous.

XI: Obama as Social Fascist 407

Today’s Obama campaign may be considered as a vaguely left of center force to shore up US

imperialism and restore the lost prestige and power of the United States in the world. Obama, it

must be repeated, has successfully imposed the current US government policy of indiscriminate

bombing and killing of Pakistanis in the North West areas of that country. Obama’s demand for a

unilateral bombing of Pakistan makes him unquestionably the most aggressive warmonger in the

2007-2008 Democratic field, and also makes him a more extreme warmonger than Bush. Many

Obama supporters seem happy with imperialist efforts intervene in the internal affairs of Pakistan

for the purpose of overthrowing the Musharraf regime. Many Obama supporters are urgently

calling for the bombing Sudan for reasons connected with the situation in Darfur. Many of them

also support the Brzezinski plan of kicking the Chinese out of Africa. The rationale for this among

Obama’s supporters is their idea that the Chinese are carrying ethnocide or cultural genocide by

building the railroad and road infrastructure which Africa has always lacked. Needless to say, there

are also large numbers of Obama supporters who are demanding a US confrontation with the

People’s Republic of China in support of the demands of the Dalai Lama, a feudal monster and a

spokesman for one of the most hideously parasitical landlord classes to be found anywhere in the

world today. The Obama lemmings do not like the war in Iraq, but on Pakistan, Darfur, and Tibet

many Obama supporters are much more aggressive than Bush-Cheney. Once we recognize that the

Obama movement is in fact a vaguely left of center mobilization in support of a new set of

aggressive imperialist adventures, its similarity to the early phases of Mussolini’s fascism becomes

more evident.

FALLOWS: OBAMA IS LIKE MARSHAL PÉTAIN AND JIMMY CARTER

James Fallows of the Atlantic Monthly, a Carter White House veteran who may have helped with

the malaise speech of July, 1979, and a keeper of the Obama flame, has published a remarkably

frank assessment of the Perfect Master, in which Fallows confesses that he sees Obama as similar in

many ways to Marshal Pétain of France, the leader of Vichy France, the Nazi puppet state in

southern France between 1940 and 1943. Pétain escaped execution as a Nazi collaborator (the Prime

Minister of Vichy, Pierre Laval, was in fact shot for treason) primarily because he was aged and had

been the hero of Verdun in World War I. Pétain was a puppet, a defeatist, and a pessimist, and his

Vichy regime is one of the variants which are generally used to make generalizations about fascism.

This makes it all the more notable that Fallows sees common ground among Pétain, Carter, and

Obama. Fallows writes: ‘I am very sensitive to the perils of this approach because the man I worked

for, Jimmy Carter, was elected in large part as a national savior—a good, religious, “never lie to

you” president to fill the moral void created by Richard Nixon, Watergate, and Vietnam. Charles

Peters, of The Washington Monthly, once compared Carter to the figurehead leader of Vichy France,

Marshal Pétain. Each man, in this view, offered to save the nation through his own personal

qualities. In Carter’s case, those turned out to be no match for the disasters of the late ’70s. For

instance: in the spring of 1980, as Carter ran for reelection, the prime interest rate was 20 percent.

The argument that Obama would be another Pétain-like Carter, offering his noble qualities only to

be overwhelmed by ignoble reality, is the deepest fear about him, or at least the one that most

resonates with me. The greatest hope is that before his brief time in the U.S. Senate, he absorbed

more practical skills and sensibilities than Carter did in Georgia. Michael Janeway, who as dean of

the Medill Journalism School at Northwestern knew the Chicago establishment figures who

nurtured Obama’s rise in the 1990s, speaks of “the Chicago way”—“getting all the parties together

and taking responsibility for finding a solution.” Under the Chicago way, the fact that Obama’s

most important speeches are short on eight-point action plans is a strength rather than a weakness:

it’s a sign that serious business will be done.’221 Of course, the “Chicago way” in reality is nothing

408 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

but the method of the Illinois Combine, an ongoing criminal organization of racketeers who are also

elected officials. As for the alleged noble qualities of Pétain and Obama, it is hard to see what they

might be.

THE OBAMA PROJECT AND IMPERIAL DECLINE: A ROMAN PARALLEL

Contemporary American opinion seems to regard the prospect of a member of a minority group

assuming state power as president as a totally unmixed blessing. But a glance at the history of

prominent world empires suggests that this turn to minority rule may be fraught with many dangers,

and may indeed represent a symptom of Imperial decline, especially when the aspiring candidate

has no significant reform agenda, but rather intends to increase the virulence of the self-destructive

tendencies already present in the system. The general pattern is that when the core imperial ethnic

group begins to lose vitality and to veer into decadence and lethargy, the expedient of bringing in

foreign adventurers as imperial bureaucrats is tried, quite often with very unsatisfactory results.

Sometimes the ethnic group which dominates the imperial oligarchy (i.e., the senatorial class) is

also so discredited that it needs to hide behind the mask of some other ethnicity. The Chinese

Empire had a very long history of absorbing foreign conquerors, and the details of this are far too

complex to be even mentioned here, but it is true that the last Chinese dynasty, the Manchu, was

founded by a peripheral minority people who were not identical with the mainline Han Chinese.

The Ottoman Turkish empire always had a tendency to give key administrative jobs to Greeks,

Venetians, and Armenians, but there is some indication that this tendency increased as the empire

declined.

The British Empire paid a great deal of attention to the Copts, Greeks, Armenians, and Jews of

the Ottoman Empire, since it sought to mobilize these ethnic minorities against the Ottoman Central

Government. The Copts, for example, were a favorite choice of the British when it came to

appointing the governments of their Egyptian protectorate, as we can see in the case of the Boutros-

Ghali family. In the last half-century of the British Empire, some of the same ethnic groups began

to take over important administrative functions in the court, the foreign office, and the city of

London, and we are doubtless on firm ground in a surfing that this increased ethnic diversity did

nothing to slow the collapse of the empire. The Prussian ruling class of the German Empire was

more interested in cultural uniformity and less willing to tolerate ethnic diversity than most imperial

ruling classes, and therefore the coming of a ruler in 1933 who was Austrian and not Prussian or

even German (based on the map of the time) was a radical departure, and it was of course followed

are the most catastrophic results. We have already noted that when the foreign policy of the

Russian Empire began to be managed by people like Pozzo di Borgo, Nesselrode, and Kapodistrias,

who were not Russians, but a Corsican, a German, and a Venetian Greek, that empire was in serious

decline. Therefore, the fatuous and superficial optimism of many US observers about the notion of a

president for the first time from the Afro-American minority group may be completely unjustified.

THE BANKRUPTCY OF COLLECTIVE GUILT

St. Thomas Aquinas was on the right track when he declared that no guilt can attach to any

person for the actions of others not under his or her control. After 1945, it became fashionable to

argue in some quarters to argue that there was a German collective guilt for the crimes of the Hitler

regime – meaning that the German housewife or factory worker somehow just as responsible for the

Nazi crimes as bankers like Schacht and Thyssen, or politicians like von Papen. It is necessary

vigorously to reject any notion of German collective guilt (Sippenhaft or Kollektivschuld) for

XI: Obama as Social Fascist 409

National Socialism. People are responsible for their own actions, and not for the actions of others.

The theory of German collective guilt is a deliberate mystification, first of all because it places

helpless little people on the same level of responsibility with powerful individuals who could have

and should have influenced the course of events in another way. German collective guilt also masks

the responsibility of important foreigners. Americans like Prescott Bush and John Foster Dulles

were important backers of Hitler’s seizure of power in January 1933. The most active support for

Hitler came from Lady Astor, and their Cliveden Set, where we find Lord Brand, Lord Lothian,

Lord Halifax, and Sir Neville Chamberlain. Another key British backer of Hitler was Lord Montagu

Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, who made possible the financial stabilization of the

Nazi regime during its first months in power. Henry Deterding, the boss of Royal Dutch Shell, was

another prominent backer of National Socialism. German collective guilt is therefore a cover story

for the main culprits.

By the same token, we must formally and categorically reject any idea of the collective guilt of

the American people. The crimes of the Bush regime, for example, are the crimes of the Bush

regime. They are the crimes of the individuals who actually carried them out, and not of the

American people as a whole, who actually voted twice to defeat Bush, but were overruled by a very

effective vote fraud machine, with the help of the same controlled corporate media who are

swooning for Barky today. The American people who are alive today are not responsible for

slavery, or other crimes and abuses of the nineteenth century. The slave system was maintained by a

three-cornered cooperation among southern planter oligarchs, New York City bankers and cotton

brokers, and City of London interests. This is who was responsible for slavery, and not some

poverty-stricken southern sharecropper or northern “mudsill,” as they used to be called. Individuals

have free will, and they are responsible for what they do and do not do, but they are not responsible

for the actions of others, and certainly not for actions carried out long before they were born.

Anyone who attempts to impose a theory of collective guilt on the American people is fabricating a

big lie, very likely with the goal of provoking some irrational backlash of ill-considered reaction,

quite possibly in the form of some subsequent phase of fascism. Those who preach collective guilt

are, in short, provocateurs.

A DISTANT MIRROR FOR OBAMA: SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS, ROMAN EMPEROR

A distant mirror for these questions may well be provided by the history of the Roman empire.222

The reign of the Emperor Commodus (180–192 AD), who was the son of the famous Stoic Marcus

Aurelius and who survived one assassination attempt before succumbing to another, brought the

Antonine dynasty to an end, and marked the transition from a period of stagnation and slow decline

into a time of more acute crisis. The murder of Commodus is associated with the end of the Pax

Romani, or “Roman Peace,” and the onset of the long decline of the Roman Empire. The end of

Commodus began the Year of the Five Emperors in 193, when there were five contenders for title

of Roman Emperor. The five were the City Prefect Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Pescennius Niger in

Syria, Clodius Albinus in Britain, and Septimius Severus in Pannonia.

Septimius Severus was by most accounts a dark-skinned native of Libya in North Africa; some

Afrocentric historians have identified him and celebrated him as the first black emperor of Rome.

But being black or nearly black did not prevent him from representing a catastrophic turning point

in Roman history. Septimius Severus had allied himself with a prominent Syrian family by his

marriage to Julia Domna. In the same way, Obama’s marriage to Michelle allied him with the Daley

machine, her family business. Septimius Severus may not have been the only dark-skinned

contender at this point, as suggested by the name of his rival Pescennius Niger, since “niger” means

410 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

black or dark, and he is described as a “black man” in some translations of the contemporary writer

Cassius Dio. But there are others who say that this was just a nickname, and that Pescennius Niger

was not African. After disposing of all of his rivals, Septimius Severus assumed power and founded

a dynasty that would extend through increasingly troubled times to include himself (193–211), his

notoriously cruel and vindictive son Caracalla (211–217), Macrinus (217–218), the monster

Elagabalus or Heliogabalus (218–222), and Alexander Severus (222–235).

SEPTIMIUS’ LARGER ARMY AND PAY HIKES START

THE GREAT ROMAN HYPERINFLATION

Because of his status as an outsider and a general, Septimius Severus decided to lean on the

praetorian guard in the Roman army, while freezing out many representatives of the Roman Senate,

where the leading oligarchs assembled. In order to win the loyalty of the Army, he substantially

increased the rates of pay, creating a very serious budget deficit that was the main cause

contributing to the beginning of hyperinflation. The hyperinflation which was launched by

Septimius Severus kept going for 300 years, and was one of the biggest causes of the final collapse

of the Roman empire and of western civilization itself. He also substituted equestrian officers for

senators in key administrative positions. Not surprisingly, Septimius Severus’ relations with the

Senate were very poor, and to compensate for this he had to appeal to the city mob as well as to the

army, which cost even more money. Septimius Severus also abolished the local regular standing

jury courts, which dated back to Republican times. He was also an energetic persecutor of

Christians and Jews.

Obama for his part has promised to increase the size of the United States Armed Forces by about

100,000 troops — a very sinister and hugely expensive detail which many of his fawning left-liberal

acolytes are incapable of comprehending. There are, however, widespread reports of grave

discontent and deep suspicion on the part of top generals and admirals towards the parvenu Obama.

How might Obama attempt to secure support from the Pentagon, or at least stave off a mutiny or a

military counter-coup? One way would clearly be to imitate Septimius Severus and radically raise

military pay rates, benefits, and bonuses in the form of a thinly disguised bribe for the officer class.

The record of the dynasty founded by Septimius Severus suggests that once a bidding war of this

type has begun it is almost impossible to stop, and often ends with tremendous political instability

as the monetary demands of the praetorian class become greater and greater, notwithstanding the

evident economic crisis of the empire.

CARACALLA’S POLITICAL REPRESSION

For our analytical purposes here, it will be convenient to compare Obama to the three most

important figures of the Septimius Severus dynasty, namely Septimius Severus himself, his son

Caracalla, and the notorious Heliogabalus. When Septimius Severus died, there was a violent

succession fight which ended when Caracalla succeeded in killing his brother Geta. Caracalla was

noted for lavish bribes to the praetorians, and also for his legendary cruelty, which was expressed in

the form of numerous assassinations of his real or imagined enemies and rivals. Michelle Obama

may find her own distant mirror among the strong-willed and ambitious women of the Severan

dynasty, beginning with Septimius Severus’s wife Julia Domna, who schemed and plotted to help

her husband become Emperor. Among the other influential women of this disastrous dynasty we

find Julia Maesa, sister of Julia Domna, and Maesa’s two daughters, Julia Soaemias, mother of the

XI: Obama as Social Fascist 411

monster Heliogabalus, and Julia Avita Mamaea, mother of Alexander Severus. It was in fact this

feminine cabal that secured the throne for Heliogabalus in 218.

HELIOGABALUS: TEENAGE EMPEROR AND MONSTER

Heliogabalus provides lasting proof that the participation of young people in politics is not

necessarily a good thing, since he was only about 15 years old when he seized the Imperial throne,

and racked up his entire record of monstrous slaughters and perversions before he was liquidated

somewhat short of the age of 20. Heliogabalus ranks with Nero and Caligula as one of the greatest

monsters to rule Rome. According to some reports, he suffocated the guests at one of his dinner

parties by releasing masses of rose petals on them from above. He married one of the vestal virgins,

a very serious violation of Roman tradition and law. Like Nero, he also married one of his own

male lovers. He is said to have prostituted himself inside his own Imperial Palace. One of

Heliogabalus’ obsessions was his quest to obtain a sex change operation so that, like Tiresias, he

could also experience life as a woman. Heliogabalus has often been characterized by modern writers

as transgender, most likely transsexual. The parallels to Obama’s reported homosexuality and

bisexuality are evident. With Heliogabalus devoting so much time and energy to these lascivious

activities, the administration of the empire fell into the hands of his grandmother and mother (Julia

Soamias). Late in his reign, Heliogabalus replaced Jupiter, the central figure of the Roman

pantheon, with a new Oriental god, Deus Sol Invictus, whose original name, Elagabalus or El-

Gabal, happened to be identical with the Emperor’s own assumed name. Heliogabalus forced the

Roman notables to comply with these changes, meaning that by praying to the new god they would

be praying to the Emperor at the same time. Julia Maesa in particular was aware that the outrageous

behavior of Heliogabalus was likely to trigger a rebellion, and could easily lead to the loss of power

by the family as a whole. She therefore organized a conspiracy which led to the assassination of

Heliogabalus and the installation of Alexander Severus, the last of the dynasty, in 222. Alexander

won some successes against the Persian Empire in the East, but his increasing inability to control

the money-hungry army led eventually to its mutiny and his assassination in 235. Heliogabalus’

religious edicts were reversed and the statue of El-Gabal, which Heliogabalus had erected for public

worship, was removed from Rome. Women were barred from ever attending meetings of the

Senate. The extreme sanction of damnatio memoriae—erasing and expunging a person from all

public records—was decreed upon Heliogabalus.

THE BREAKDOWN CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY, 235-284 AD

The death of Alexander Severus began a period of about half a century which can be considered

the first collapse of the Roman Empire. This period is known as the crisis of the third century,

extending from 235-284 AD. It is also called the period of the “military anarchy.” During this time,

as a direct consequence of the abuses and failures of the Septimius Severus dynasty, the Empire

underwent military, political and economic crises and began to collapse. The leading factors in this

collapse were a constant series of barbarian invasions by Germanic tribes coming out of Central

Asia, a civil war inside the empire, and the galloping hyperinflation which had been triggered by

Septimius Severus’ increase in the size and pay scales of the Army. The crisis of the third century

was marked by acute political instability, with about 25 Emperors seizing and losing power, usually

by assassination, in a period of 50 years. Many of these emperors were lower-class adventurers,

and a number were quite exotic, such as the Emperor Philip the Arab. The western provinces of the

empire broke away to form an ephemeral empire of Gaul, while the Eastern provinces created an

equally unstable empire of Palmyra.

412 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

At the same time, a series of barbarian invasions by Carpians, Goths, Vandals, and Alamanni

occurred, supplemented by attacks from the Sassanid Persians in the east. The strength of the

empire was undermined by the runaway hyperinflation caused by many years of debasing the

coinage. This had started earlier under the Severan emperors who enlarged the army by one quarter

and doubled the base pay. As each new upstart barracks Emperor took power, they had to loot the

treasury and the merchant class to quickly raise the money needed to pay the expected “accession

bonus” to the troops, and this was often accomplished by clipping coins and minting new coinage

with more copper and lead. The easiest way to do so was by simply cutting the silver in coins and

adding less valuable metals. This total crisis of the empire is often thought of as marking the

transition between classical Greco-Roman civilization and late antiquity, or the beginning of the

dark ages. A relative stabilization of the empire was reached about 284 with the coming of

Diocletian, but then in such a way that guaranteed the final collapse a couple of centuries later.

The reforms of Diocletian boiled down to preserving a semblance of imperial power based on a

zero-growth totalitarian military autocracy that was doomed to an eventual collapse. One of the

main problems was that during the crisis of the third century, lawlessness, piracy, and brigandage

had expanded to such a scale that the Roman roads and the sea lanes of mare nostrum (the

Mediterranean) were no longer safe for merchants to travel, while the currency crisis made any

system of payments unstable and chaotic. Trade inside the empire had suffered a collapse from

which it would never recover. This led to tendencies towards local self-sufficiency, giving rise over

time to the manorial system, accompanied by the dominance of the feudal aristocracy who ruled

over a population of proto-serfs who had given up most of their liberty in exchange for food and

protection. In late Roman times these serfs became a half-free class of citizens known as coloni.

Even though a semblance of political unity was restored under Diocletian, dozens of important

cities in the western part of the empire had been largely destroyed, and their populations forced to

flee. Most of these cities would never recover for centuries to come. The atmosphere of general

insecurity is reflected by the city walls that had to be put up to defend important commercial

centers, including Rome itself.

ULPIAN: WHAT PLEASES THE PRINCE HAS THE FORCE OF LAW

For a sampling of the political mentality of these times, we can turn to the Roman jurist

Domitius Ulpianus (died 228), known as Ulpian. Ulpian was appointed by Septimius Severus to the

Council of State, and under Caracalla was master of the requests (magister libellorum). He was

driven out of office by Heliogabalus but brought back by Alexander, whom he served as chief

adviser. He was killed by the soldiers in 208 AD when he tried to crack down on some of the

abusive privileges enjoyed by the praetorian guard. Some of Ulpian’s sayings are simply edifying

propaganda of the hope and change variety such as his one-liner “Law is the art of the good and the

fair.” (Jus est ars boni et aequi.) Much more to the point is another saying which expresses the

spirit of every totalitarian regime down to the present day: “The sovereign is not bound by the

laws.” (Princeps legibus solutus est.) Bush believes that, and his fellow megalomaniac Obama

probably will lodge a similar claim. Another of Ulpian’s sayings captures some of the spirit of the

20th century dictators: “What pleases the prince has the force of law.” (Quo principi placuit legis

habet vigorem.)

All of these developments can be thought of as a result of the institutional and economic

processes which had been set in motion by the dynasty founded by Septimius Severus. If this phase

of Roman history can provide any insight into our own time, we may be facing a process of

XI: Obama as Social Fascist 413

galloping hyperinflation, the breakdown of internal order, institutional dissolution, military defeat

abroad, civil war, and social chaos under a possible Obama regime.

A WEATHERMAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE?

Character is destiny. Biography is destiny. We have no crystal ball to predict the detailed

evolution of a future Obama regime; we have nothing but the certainty that it will be a disaster.

Obama is drawn to his terrorist friends Ayers and Dohrn not just because he needs their money,

their network support, and their access to foundation funding. Obama is close to Ayers and Dohrn

because he genuinely finds them congenial, not just at the level of small talk and parenting, but

rather at the level of the deepest psychological affinities and philosophical commitments which a

person like Obama is capable of. The terrorist Weathermen, during their heroic or terrorist phase,

were the most concentrated expression of the class hatred for American working people on the part

of the financier elites and their dupes and retainers in affluent suburbia. The Weatherman outlook

had passed far beyond the cynical hypocrisy of a Nixon to attain a cynical nihilism that was fascist

in every way. Ayers and Dohrn expressed this hatred with their bombs, with their praise of Manson,

with their fork salutes. Ward Churchill, another Weatherman who figures in the lives of Ayers and

Dohrn, expressed the same hatred with his desire for the annihilation of the United States from the

planet. James Cone, the teacher of Wright, acted out this hatred with his fervent prayer for a god

who would kill white people. All of these figures are the provocateurs and ideologues of a dying

imperialism in the process of transforming itself into a death cult. This is the outlook which Barack

Hussein Obama, with his background in Rousseauvian anthropology, diluted Marxism, Nietzschean

protofascism, postmodernist rejection of reality, and Fanon’s existentialist worship of violence,

finds in himself. This is why he can so successfully read from the Teleprompter the fascist rantings

composed by his Goebbels detachment, Axelrod and Favreau. This is why Obama talks like a

fascist and is a fascist in the tradition of the young Mussolini, and why, with the help of Trilateral-

Bilderberger media, money, and networks, he has already gone far towards assembling a fascist

mass movement (or reasonable media facsimile thereof) around himself.

So, if we want to know his real program of government, we need to go back to the last

Weatherman war council in Michigan, before the townhouse blew up and before they all went into

clandestine safe houses. We need to recall the speech by Ted Gold, the leader of the Mad Dog

faction, who had only a few months left before he would blow himself into eternity in his

Greenwich Village bomb factory. As we have noted, Gold said in 1969 that the Weatherman

program was that “an agency of the people of the world” would be set up to run the U.S. economy

and society after the defeat of U.S. imperialism abroad. Today that would be an agency directed by

people like Soros, the Rockefellers, and the other Wall Street financial parasites. They would say

that the savage austerity, the declining standards of living, the growing immiseration, the

strangulation of production, are all in the name of solidarity and aid for the developing countries.

They would probably add something about global warming, climate change, the polar bears, and the

ice caps at the North Pole to explain to people why their starving children have no health care.

But Gold’s perspective, it will be remembered, was too much even for some of those attending

that last Weatherman debate more than forty years ago.

“Well,” replied Gold, “If it will take fascism, we’ll have to have fascism.”

This, we submit, is the best guide we have to Obama’s intentions. His best friends in life have

been Weatherman terrorists, genuine murderers, practitioners of purgative violence in the tradition

of Nietzsche’s blond beast. Or else they have been professional paid haters kept in business by the

414 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

foundations. Obama’s campaign logo, the blue oval like a portal with stripes on the ground appears

as a hybrid of the Weatherman rainbow and lightning bolt tattooed on Ayers’ back and the lightning

bolt in a circle which was the symbol of Sir Oswald Mosely’s British Union of Fascists back in the

1930s. Obama’s foreign policy will be the apocalyptic showdown with Russian and China

demanded by his chief controller, Zbigniew Brzezinski. His economic policy will be to flay the

American people alive with drastic economic austerity. Those who think that nothing could be

worse than Bush will have to concede that when it comes to pure evil, the Trilateral Commission

has a lot more imagination than they do.

The infinity of obstacles, delays, defeats, and reverses which Obama has already had to face

suggest that, outside of the decadent and degenerate elites who look to Wall Street, the media, and

academia for leadership, ordinary American working people are still anti-fascist. There are still vast

untapped anti-fascist resources which can brought to bear to ward off Obama’s monstrous project.

But now a seizure of power by the Obama postmodern fascist coup is imminent. It is time for

persons of good will to mobilize.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I: PRESS STATEMENT OF LARRY SINCLAIR,

NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, WASHINGTON DC, JUNE 18, 2008

Good afternoon, my name is Larry Sinclair and I am a former recreational drug user and

trafficker, a convicted felon for crimes of forgery, bad checks and theft by check. I am also an

American who loves this country and I cannot stay silent regarding Barack Obama knowing what I

know.

Today I will discharge my obligation as a citizen to witness this knowledge to you and raise

questions for others to investigate and consider. I am going to briefly describe my background, my

experience with Senator Obama in 1999, what appears to me to be a coordinated effort to discredit

me and finally a list of questions. After this brief statement, I will take and try to answer any

reasonable questions. Background

I am 46 years old and I currently reside in Duluth, MN. I am a US Citizen, and I have made

mistakes in my lifetime. I have been convicted and served prison sentences for writing bad checks,

forging checks, using stolen credit card numbers in Arizona, Florida and Colorado. These event’s

occurred over twenty (20) years ago between 1980 thru 1986. After going public on the internet

with these claims against Senator Obama earlier this year, I became aware of a warrant out of

Florida from 1986 which I have resolved and it has now been dismissed. I also have an active

“Colorado Only” warrant for alleged “Theft and Forgery”. I am not ignoring this warrant but am

addressing it with the Court in Colorado as well as with the DA’s office. I have a pending motion to

dismiss this warrant which I am waiting to have calendared by the Colorado Court.

I have lived and worked under three different names. My birth name is Lawrence W. Sinclair.

Later on, I had my name legally changed first to La-Rye A. Silvas, and then La-Rye Vizcarra Avila.

The last two were legal name changes granted by the court in Penal County Superior Court,

Florence Arizona. I legally returned to my birth name in the Fremont County District court, Canon

City, Colorado in 1997. Obama Incident

I flew out of Colorado Springs, Colorado to Chicago on November 2, 1999, arriving in O’Hare

early in the morning of November 3, 1999. I went to the Chicago area to attend the graduation of

my god son (my best friend’s son) from basic training from the Great Lakes Navy Training Center.

I made reservations at the Comfort Inn and Suites in Gurnee, IL based on location to the Navy

Training center. On November 5, 1999, I hired the services of Five Star Limo. I had hired them for

both November 5 and November 6. On November 6, 1999, I asked the limo driver – whose name I

now reveal for the first time – Paramjit Multani, if he knew anyone who would like to socialize and

show me Chicago. Paramjit Multani understood that I was not looking for someone who knew

Chicago and would enjoy socializing. Paramjit Multani said he knew someone who was a friend of

his.

On November 6, 1999 after picking me up at the Hotel in Gurnee– and this is significant –

Paramjit Multani used his cellphone to make a call. That call was made to then-Illinois State

Senator Barack Obama to set up an introduction between me and Senator Obama. Upon arriving at

the bar and exiting the Limo, Senator Obama was standing next to Paramjit Multani and I was

416 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

introduced to Senator Obama. Later that evening at a bar which I believe was called Alibis, I

mention I could use a line or two to wake up. Senator Obama asked me if I was referring to “coke”

and after stating I was, Obama stated he could purchase cocaine for me and then made a telephone

call – and this too is significant — from his cellphone to a presently unknown individual during

which Senator Obama arranged the cocaine purchase.

Senator Obama and I then departed the bar in my limousine and proceeded to an unknown

location where Senator Obama exited the limousine with two hundred fifty dollars ($250) I had

given him and returned a short while later with an “eightball” of cocaine which he gave to me. I did

ingest a couple of lines of cocaine, and shortly thereafter Senator Obama produced a glass cylinder

pipe and packet of crack cocaine from his pants pocket and Obama smoked the crack cocaine. I

performed fellatio on Senator Obama in the limousine during the time Senator Obama was smoking

crack cocaine, after which I had the driver take me to the my hotel, The Comfort Suits, Gurnee,

Illinois.

The following day, November 7, 1999, Senator Obama appeared at my hotel room where we

again ingested cocaine and I again performed fellatio on Senator Obama. Significantly, both the

driver’s telephone call to Senator Obama and his call to the drug dealer should appear on the

driver’s and Senator Obama’s cellphone billing statements. Fall 2007

In September 2007 I contacted the Presidential Campaign of Barack H. Obama, to request solely

that Senator Obama publicly correct his stated drug use record to reflect his use of crack cocaine

with me in November 1999. When I made that first contact I left with the Presidential Campaign of

Senator Barack H. Obama a telephone number for the campaign to return my call. The first number

I provided was a Texas cell phone number. From the period of Labor day weekend 2007 through

November 18, 2007 I did rovide a total of four (4) different call back numbers to the Obama

campaign, as I had moved and had changed the numbers to reflect locally my place of residence at

the time. In late September to early October 2007, I received a call from a male who identified

himself as a “Mr. Young” stating he was calling in regards to calls I had made to the Obama

campaign. This first call was in fact an attempt by “Mr. Young” to obtained from me the identities

of anyone I had contacted concerning my 1999 allegations against Senator Obama. This first called

shocked me in that this “Mr. Young” asked me why I had not asked Senator Obama to disclose the

sexual encounters I had with Mr. Obama in 1999. I was shocked as I had never mentioned to the

campaign or anyone working for the campaign any sexual encounters as my call was prompted by

drug allegations only. The call ended with “Mr. Young” stating I would hear from someone in a few

days.

In mid to late October 2007, I received a second call from this “Mr. Young” at which time I

clearly became aware that this individual was personally involved with Senator Obama rather than

just an employee of his campaign. The tone of the conversation had a sexual nature. “Mr. Young”

did not once advise me how he obtained my phone number which by this time had now changed to

a Delaware number.

In late October 2007, I received a text message from the gentleman identified as “Mr. Young” in

which he stated he was intimately involved with Senator Obama and that Obama was discussing

with him and his pastor how to publicly acknowledge Senator Obama’s drug use in 1999 and that

Obama wanted to be sure I had not discussed the sexual encounters or drug incidents with any

media at that time.

Appendices 417

In mid to late November 2007, in another text message from “Mr. Young” , he advised me that

Senator Obama will publicly correct his statement as to he last time he used drugs and I did not

need to concern myself with publicly disclosing it myself. The last contact I had with “Mr. Young”

was in early December 2007 when he made it clear to me that Senator Obama had no intentions of

publicly acknowledging his 1999 use of crack cocaine and that “Mr. Young” was in fact doing

nothing more than milking information from me for Senator Obama’s use.

I later learned that a Donald Young was the choir director of Reverend Wright’s Trinity United

Church of Christ – Obama’s now-former church — and was openly a homosexual. I also learned

that he was murdered on December 23, 2007. I have cooperated with the Chicago Police

Department in this matter by providing them the telephone numbers I was using during the fall of

2007 and I release them now publically in the hope that someone may be able to connect the dots

between these telephone numbers and Mr. Young. Those numbers are: 954-758-1105, 956-758-

1885, 956-758-8002, 02-685-7175; 612-466-1043.

In what I now realize was a naive and un-counseled decision, I posted in January 2008 a video

on YouTube.com where I related the above information regarding my liaisons with Senator Obama

in 1999. The response was overwhelming and I quickly became the recipient of what in hindsight

appears to have been a coordinated attack on my character with ever increasing falsehoods

circulating on the internet.

In response I agreed to take a polygraph test from Whitehouse.com. The results of that test have

been partially revealed to the end of labeling me a liar and taken as gospel by all. I would like to

make the following comments about that polygraph test. First, I have been subsequently advised

that Whitehouse.com was a website dedicated to anti-Clinton pornography until earlier this year.

Second, I have now come to understand that lie detectors are junk science at best which is why

courts of law refuse to use them. Third, a review of the results by George W. Maschke, Ph.D. of

AntiPolygraph.org raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the examination. Indeed,

overlooked by almost everyone is that hitehouse.com’s own examiner, Dr. Gordon Barland,

observed that on the drug question regarding Senator Obama that the computerized score found that

there was less than a 1% probability of deception by me. That’s about as high a passing score as one

can possibly attain.

Finally, in February 2008 I was told anonymously that Dan Parisi of Whitehouse.com received

$750,000 from the Obama campaign through AKR Media to organize an effort to publically

discredit me. When I confronted Dan Parisi with this allegation, he did not deny it but instead

withdrew the second exonerating polygraph report of Dr. Gordon Barland, failed to post the video

of my polygraph as he and Whitehouse.com promised they would do, and even removed posts from

their web site altogether, claiming that they had “had enough of the attacks by Sinclair’s supporters

and Sinclair himself.”

The polygraph results - as misrepresented – were immediately seized upon by the blogger

community and I became the subject of vicious lies about me. I was forced to file a lawsuit in an

attempt to stop those lies about me that have been circulating. That lawsuit sought to obtain the

proof of what I was saying about my contact with Senator Obama through subpoenas for the

identities of the anonymous bloggers so they could be linked to the Obama campaign and relevant

records of the cellphone companies to prove the truth of my allegations. To date, though the lawsuit

418 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

is now over ninety days old, Judge Kennedy has refused to permit the suit to move forward so this

evidence may be obtained. Conclusion

In sum, you can discredit my story and then make your decision on who should be the next

President of the United States. The burden is now off me as I have told my story without the

distortions that have been intentionally heaped on me in what my lawyer tells me is an ad hominem

attack – shoot the messenger so you don’t have to hear the message he is bringing. I am now done.

It is for others to find the corroborating evidence of my story by locating the limousine driver –

Jagir P. Multani – and the telephone numbers related to Donald Young and/or Senator Obama. I

leave you with these questions that I have asked of Senator Obama but which he – who wants to be

the next President of the United States – has refused to answer:

1. Why won’t Senator Obama provide his cellphone numbers and telephone records for all his

personal and official cell phones held by him for the time period of November 3, 1999 thru

November 8, 1999, when we met?

2. Why won’t Senator Obama provide his cellphone numbers and telephone records for all his

personal and official cell phones held by Senator Obama or September 2007 – December 23, 2008,

the murder of Donald Young?

3. Why won’t Senator Obama provide all email communication both personal and campaign

related to and/or from AKP Message & Media from January 18, 2008 through February 29, 2008

for Senator Obama, David Axelrod and David Plouffe?

4. Why won’t Senator Obama provide proof of all payments made from AKP Message & Media,

Obama for America, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, and Senator Obama’s accounts for the period

of January 18, 2008 through February 29, 2008?

On my website – larrysinclair.org – you will find the documents that I have referred to in this

statement. A copy of the home page for that website is attached. Thank you for your time and

attention this afternoon and I will now take any questions.

- E n d -

APPENDIX II. PRESS RELEASE OF PHILIP J. BERG,

PHILADELPHIA, AUGUST 21, 2008

Philip J. Berg, Esq. Files Federal Lawsuit Requesting Obama Be Removed as a Candidate as he

does not meet the Qualifications for President

Suit filed 08/21/08, No. 08-cv-4083

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 08/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, [Berg is a former Deputy

Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate in Democratic

Primaries; former Chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County; former member of

Democratic State Committee; an attorney with offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active

practice in Philadelphia, PA], filed a lawsuit in Federal Court today, Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action

Appendices 419

No. 08-cv-4083, seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction that Obama does not meet the

qualifications to be President of the United States. Berg filed this suit for the best interests of the

Democratic Party and the citizens of the United States. “Eighteen million Democratic Primary

voters donated money, volunteered their time and energy, worked very hard and then not only

supported Senator Clinton, but voted for her and often recruited other supporters as well. All the

efforts of supporters of legitimate citizens were for nothing because this man lied and cheated his

way into a fraudulent candidacy and cheated legitimately eligible natural born citizens from

competing in a fair process and the supporters of their citizen choice for the nomination.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire stated in his lawsuit that Senator Obama:

1. Is not a natural-born citizen; and/or

2. Lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia; and/or

3. Has dual loyalties because of his citizenship with Kenya and Indonesia.

Berg stated: “I filed this action at this time to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when

the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.

There have been numerous questions raised about Obama’s background with no satisfactory

answers. The questions that I have addressed include, but are not limited to:

1. Where was Obama born? Hawaii; an island off of Hawaii; Kenya; Canada; or ?

2. Was he a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia and/or Canada?

3. What was the early childhood of Obama in Hawaii; in Kenya; in Indonesia when he was

adopted; and later, back to Hawaii?

4. An explanation as to the various names utilized by Obama that include: Barack Hussein

Obama; Barry Soetoro; Barry Obama; Barack Dunham; and Barry Dunham.

5. Illinois Bar Application – Obama fails to acknowledge use of names other than Barack

Hussein Obama, a blatant lie.

420 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

If Obama can prove U.S. citizenship, we still have the issue of muti-citizenship with

responsibilities owed to and allegance to other countries.

Berg continued:

Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Senator

Obama's lies and obfuscations. He clearly shows a conscience of guilt by his actions in using the

forged birth certificate and the lies he's told to cover his loss of citizenship. We believe he does

know, supported this belief by his actions in hiding his secret, in that he failed to regain his

citizenship and used documents to further his position as a natural born citizen. We would also

show he proclaims himself a Constitutional scholar and lecturer, but did not learn he had no

eligibility to become President except by means of lying, obfuscations and deceptions. His very acts

proves he knew he was no longer a natural born citizen. We believe he knew he was defrauding the

country or else why use the forged birth certificate of his half sister?

Americans lost money, goods and services donated in their support of a candidate who

supposedly was a natural born citizen simply because the DNC officers and party leaders looked the

other way and did not demand credentials to answer the questions and prove whether or not Senator

Obama was a legitimately natural born citizen, even in light of recent information that has surfaced

on websites on the Internet suggesting Senator Obama may not be eligible to become President and

questioning his status of multiple citizenships and questionable loyalties! If the DNC officers and.or

leaders had performed one ounce of due diligence we would not find ourselves in this emergency

predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a

child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship through an oath of

allegiance at age eighteen [18] as prescribed by Constitutional laws!

The injunctive relief must be granted because failing to do so, this inaction defrauds everyone

who voted in the Democratic Primary for a nominee that is a fair representation of the voters.

Failure to grant injunctive relief would allow a corrupted, fraudulent nomination process to

continue. It not only allows, but promotes an overwhelming degree of disrespect and creates such a

lack of confidence in voters of the primary process itself, so that it would cement a prevailing belief

that no potential candidate has to obey the laws of this country, respect our election process, follow

the Constitution, or even suffer any consequence for lying and defrauding voters to get onto the

ballot when they have no chance of serving if they fraudulently manage to get elected! It is unfair to

Appendices 421

the country for candidates of either party to become the nominee when there is any question of their

ability to serve if elected.

All judges are lawyers and held to a higher standard of practice than a regular lawyer. It is this

Judicial standard that demands injunctive relief prayed for here. This relief is predicated upon one

of the most basic premises of practicing law which states no lawyer can allow themselves to be used

in furthering a criminal enterprise. And by that gauge alone, failing to give injunctive relief to the

18 million supporters of the other candidate, a true natural born citizen eligible to serve if elected,

this court must not allow itself to be used to further the criminal and fraudulent acts to continue and

be rewarded by becoming the Democratic Nominee. Failure to give the injunctive relief prayed for

will insure that a corrupted Presidential election process will only guarantee a show of unfair

preference of one group of people over another group by not demanding the same rules be applied

to all groups equally and fairly, especially in light of the fact that both candidates are each

considered a minority.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

APPENDIX III: ON THE ASSASSINATION OF BILL GWATNEY,

ARKANSAS STATE DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN

IS THE DEATH OF THE ARKANSAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIRMAN

PART OF AN OBAMA BODY COUNT?

By Webster G. Tarpley

Washington DC, Aug. 13 -- This afternoon, Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney

fell victim to what was evidently a political assassination. Gwatney was a major ally of Hillary and

Bill Clinton, and was a leader of the strongly pro-Clinton Arkansas delegation to the upcoming

Denver Democratic National Convention. Some had expected Gwatney to lead anti-Obama floor

operations at the upcoming Denver convention.

Gwatney's Arkansas delegation was known to be a hotbed of anti-Obama sentiment, and was

reportedly ready to walk out of the Denver convention if Senator Clinton were not to be treated

fairly by the pro-Obama Howard Dean-Donna Brazile DNC leadership.

Observers in Washington are now asking whether the assassination of Gwatney can be read as

attempted intimidation of the anti-Obama forces which are now gaining strength before the Denver

convention.

422 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Is the death of Bill Gwatney part of an Obama body count, which already includes the names of

Donald Young (the murdered gay choirmaster of Rev. Wright's church) and possibly others?

[These suspicions solidified a few days later, when Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones of

Ohio, one of Senator Clinton’s most prominent black supporters, collapsed and died while driving

her car. Her death was ruled the result of an aneurism. But this did nothing to quell suspicions that

arose when two of the most important floor leaders of the Clinton forces died just days before the

Denver convention, where the Obama clique was known to fear rebellion, protests, and walkouts by

disenfranchised and bullied Clinton delegates.]

APPENDIX IV: MOTORMOUTH JOE BIDEN: WARMONGER, WORDMONGER,

AND POLITICAL HIT MAN

By Webster G. Tarpley

Washington DC, August 28, 2008 – The vice presidential candidate chosen to run with Obama is

Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, a discredited, sleazy, and shopworn political hack -- and therefore

an anti-climax for all the callow and feckless youth who got the word via text message at 3am in the

morning. The ability of the Trilateral-Bilderberg machine which controls Obama to put up a person

like Biden already reflects the further degradation of US political life over the past 9-12 months,

largely as a result of Obama’s own demagogic, no-issues, personality cult agitation.

A year ago, there was wide agreement in the US middle class that Bush and Cheney should be

impeached, that the police state be rolled back, and that the Iraq war should be ended as soon as

physically possible. Thanks largely to the advent of the vapid and messianic Obama, these issues

have now been thoroughly deflated. Biden is himself an incurable warmonger who voted for the

Iraq war and blathered ceaselessly in favor of Bush’s aggressive adventure to all who would listen.

Naming Biden is a brutal insult to the antiwar majority of the Democratic Party, and Obama is

obviously hoping that the Iraq war issue is dead, so nobody will care. Last year, Obama promised

that he would work against the mentality that produced Iraq; if anyone incarnates that mentality, it

is Biden. Biden is an incurable imperialist and an eager advocate of the discredited Bush-Cheney

“war on terror.” He even tried to use one of the Democratic debates last year to whip up hysteria in

favor of attacking Sudan over the Darfur issue, and with some success. “I went there. I sat in the

borders. I went in those camps. They're going to have thousands and thousands and thousands of

people die. We've got to stop talking and act,” Biden postured in Manchester New Hampshire on

June 3, 2007 in an apparent call for bombing Sudan, a coup in Khartoum, or an invasion. Incredibly,

the crowd applauded wildly.

Biden remains convinced that it is up to the United States to dictate the form of government and

economic system of virtually every country in the world. His specialty is blatant interference in the

internal affairs of sovereign states, with left-cover of soft power issues like human rights and

humanitarian concerns furnishing his favorite pretexts. Biden has learned nothing from the Iraq

debacle except that Iraq was not the right victim; more appropriate victims and more effective

methods will have to be found, argues Biden. The real lesson of Iraq (and Lebanon 2006) is that

US-British imperialism and world domination are finished historically, but this is lost on Biden.

Biden is the author of the odious plan to balkanize, partition, and subdivide Iraq into three zones:

a Kurdish state designed to carve up Iran, Syria and Turkey as well as Iraq; a landlocked and oilpoor

Sunni desert entity; and an oil-rich Shiastan in the south that might absorb the Arabistan or

Achwaz province of Iran is a later breakup scenario for Iran. Biden’s plan is a continuation of the

Appendices 423

Bernard Lewis plan to break up the existing states of the Middle East in a way destined to create a

mosaic of pseudo-independent, squabbling mini-states or micro-states. This approach places Biden

squarely behind the Zbigniew Brzezinski “dignity” doctrine of breaking up the existing nation states

of the world in favor of a crazy quilt of micro-states based on ethnic and religious parochialism and

particularism; not one of these micro-states could stand up to Exxon-Mobil or JP Morgan Chase.

BIDEN IS MORALLY INSANE ON GEORGIA

Biden’s ample track record as an agent provocateur against Russia goes back more than a decade

to the time he mobilized his mouth to help demonize Milosevic of Serbia as part of the Albright-

Holbrooke-Wesley Clark anti-Russian campaign of those years, which ended with the NATO

bombing of Serbia, an act of unprecedented historical vandalism. In the past week, warmonger

Biden has rushed to the side of the latest tin pot mini-Mussolini of the Brzezinski-Soros faction, the

infamous war criminal and gangster Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia. “I left the country convinced

that Russia's invasion of Georgia may be the one of the most significant events to occur in Europe

since the end of communism,” raved Biden on his return, documenting his own moral insanity by

siding with the aggressor. “The claims of Georgian atrocities that provided the pretext for Russia's

invasion are rapidly being disproved by international observers, and the continuing presence of

Russian forces in the country has severe implications for the broader region,” added the Orwellian

senator.

BIDEN: $1 BILLION FOR MADMAN SAAKASHVILI

In presenting Biden, Barky reveled in Biden’s “tough message” for Russia; we are sure Putin is

trembling. Biden wants to prop up the madman Saakashvili with $1 billion of the US taxpayers’

money, a gesture which is every bit as obscene as the worst Bush-Cheney excesses. $1 billion

would get us on the road to fully funding a program like WIC (high-protein foods for expectant

mothers) or Head Start, but this thought does not occur to Biden when he is trying to provoke

Russia. We can see the cruel elitism of a financier-controlled Obama regime taking place before our

eyes.

Obama and Biden resemble each other closely, Both are insufferable windbags besotted with

their own rhetorical verbiage. Biden’s celebrated gaffes will provide comic relief, as long as they do

not gaffe us into World War III, which is always a distinct possibility. Obama and Biden are

addicted to the sound of their own voices, and this may turn out to be the fatal flaw that sinks them

when the voters get sick of the endless parade of speeches. Obama and Biden are in danger of

drowning in their own endless blabber. Each one has more than a touch of megalomania, which

prevents them from seeing their limits. Biden’s middle name is Robinette, which is close to the term

for a faucet tap in French. Biden has never been able to find the tap to turn off his own mouth.

BARKY AND BIDEN: BOTH ON THE TAKE FROM THE REZKO-CARI GANG

By now the whole world knows the story of Tony Rezko, the Chicago racketeer and gangster

who has been Barky’s political godfather for almost twenty years. Rezko, now a convicted felon

awaiting sentencing in October, is an integral part of the bipartisan criminal enterprise known as the

Illinois Combine, one of the filthiest cesspools of graft and corruption in the United States. It

transpires that Joe Biden has a political godfather of his own who closely linked to Rezko, and who

has also become a convicted felon by pleading guilty in the Operation Board Games investigation

by the Chicago US Attorney’s office. This is Joseph Cari Jr., described by the Washington Times of

424 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

August 28, 2008 as a “former national finance chairman for the Democratic National Committee

and a longtime supporter and political adviser to Mr. Biden.” Cari had extorted an $850,000

kickback from JER Inc., a Virginia investment firm that wanted to manage $850 million of

retirement funds belonging to Illinois teachers. This shakedown took place under a pension fund

setup which State Senator Obama had helped to put into place when he was in Springfield under the

cover of giving minority firms more representation. Cari has given some $200,000 to Democratic

candidates over the years, including $4,000 directly to Biden, with whom hen is closely linked. So

the basis of this year’s Democratic ticket is the colossal graft of the Illinois Combiner and its looting

operations known under the heading of Operation Board Games. Is Biden, like Barky, subject to

indictment at any time, and thus guaranteed to follow the orders of the banking establishment? The

safe bet was that he is indeed.

TWO PLAGIARISTS ON THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET

Obama and Biden are both plagiarists; words are their stock in trade, and even the words are

fake. It emerged this spring that Obama was spouting verbatim the canned speeches of Governor

Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, his fellow clone from the Trilateral stable. Biden is a picaresque

paladin of plagiarism. His 1988 presidential campaign was aborted when he was found to have

stolen paragraphs of a speech by the Labour Party leader, Neil Kinnock. He had also embroidered

his campaign biography. Biden had also been guilty of plagiarism at the Syracuse University law

school which he attended, but he had somehow talked his way out of those charges.

BIDEN A CREATURE OF THE WORST CREDIT CARD GOUGERS

Biden represents Delaware in the US Senate. Delaware is not a state, but a giant post box for

Dupont, General Motors, and many of the giant corporations and Wall Street firms. The state

politics of Delaware are dictated down to the most minute detail by the bankers and their corporate

lackeys, since everything depends on keeping a pro-oligarchical political climate in the state. Biden

personally is a tool of MBNA, a credit card issuer that was recently absorbed by the Bank of

America, which presumably now also owns Biden. Biden got at least $215,000 from MBNA over

the past decade. MBNA is notoriously one of the biggest predatory lenders and interest rate gougers

in the entire usurious world of credit cards, and Biden’s services to them are precisely in this area:

Biden was a big supporter of the 2005 bankruptcy law which makes it much harder for working

families to escape debt bondage and debt slavery – just what the looters at MBNA ordered. Biden

has also boasted that he wrote the ban on assault weapons, a measure that is sure to cause problems

among the bitter clingers of Appalachia who are concerned about gun ownership.

Obama has voted for the rotten compromise on FISA illegal wiretaps ordered by Bush that

grants retroactive immunity to the telecoms. Biden is also an enthusiastic police state totalitarian. In

1995, after the Oklahoma City false flag bombing, Biden submitted an oppressive police state bill,

in many ways a precursor of Bush’s infamous Patriot Act. “I drafted a terrorism bill after the

Oklahoma City bombing,” boasts Biden. “And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill.” Biden’s

only regret is that he was not able to undermine political freedom as much as he wanted to.

Obama’s drooling acolytes have argued all summer that to name Senator Clinton to the ticket

would negate Barky’s profile of youth, change, hope, and so forth. Clinton has been a national

figure for almost twenty years, but she has been dumped in favor of Biden, who has been in the US

Senate for about 36 years and is about as stale and hackneyed as a political figure could be. The

difference is that Biden’s track recor5d established him as an obedient servant of the Wall Street

Appendices 425

banks that have their post box headquarters in his state; the Clintons, by contrast, represent the

closest thing we have to political combination not wholly owned by Wall Street and capable of

saying no to the bankers when they demand austerity and aggression, as they are assuredly doing

now. Rockefeller and Soros do not want Sen. Clinton in the presidential succession under any

circumstances, and this is an important positive qualification for the New York senator.

BEAU BIDEN, THE CORRUPT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DELAWARE

Joe Biden’s son is Beau Biden, the current attorney general of Delaware. Beau is involved in one

of the dirtiest enemies’ list operations in recent memory against Larry Sinclair, who has come

forward with explosive charges of gay sex and crack cocaine use in 1999 on the part of Obama.

When Sinclair came to the National Press Club in Washington on June 18 to make his case, he was

arrested on a trumped-up warrant issued by Beau Biden. Sinclair is being threatened with a long jail

term, essentially because he has spoken out against Obama. It was a clear bid to do a favor for

Barky and get Joe Biden on the ticket in the veep slot. That has now occurred – on the basis of a

police state operation against an outspoken political opponent which goes beyond Nixon or Bush-

Cheney, since Obama is not yet president and may well never be.

The Biden announcement was thoroughly botched and bungled by Axelrod, Plouffe, and

Favreau. The text message gimmick is drawn straight from the Kiev Orange revolution of 2004 and

the Tiflis Roses revolution of 2003, the models for Obama’s attempt to seize power. The

proceedings were a carnival of gaffes and Freudian slips, all ignored by Obama’s loyal brigade of

media whores. According to Barky, Joe Biden would help enact “a new energy policy to freeze

ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil” – a chilling prospect.

“BARACK AMERICA” AND OTHER FREUDIAN SLIPS

Barky made another revealing Freudian slip: “the next President… the next Vice President – Joe

Biden.” Does Barky know that Biden will act as his resident in-house controller? Biden, evidently

mindful that he will have to sell the radical subversive Obama as a wholesome product of the

heartland, returned the gaffe by calling the presumptive nominee “Barack America” or “Barack

American.” Perhaps he was trying to imitate the old Subliminal Man of Saturday Night Live, but

was too slow.

Behind Barky’s Freudian slip is the fact that Biden will evidently run foreign policy for the

clueless Obama in much the same way that Brzezinski ran foreign policy above and behind Carter,

or that Cheney has run foreign policy above and behind Bush. Obama is so ignorant and cognitively

impaired that he could hardly understand the instructions that bankers’ spokesmen like Brzezinski

and Soros will be shouting to him on the phone. This is where an experienced hack like Biden is

needed. The media, in a transparent attempt to portray an apostolic succession for Biden, are still

feeding the illusion that Biden was chosen by Caroline Kennedy. In reality, the choice was probably

made by Trilateral-Bilderberg operative Jim Johnson, who was forced to retreat from his announced

role as The Vetter by revelations about a sweetheart mortgage, but probably just kept going behind

the scenes.

The Obama campaign has repeated ad nauseam its mantra that McCain is running for Bush’s

third term. McCain has answered that Obama is running for Jimmy Carter’s second term. The reality

may be that Joe Biden is running for Dick Cheney’s third term as the resident controller of a lazy

and shallow puppet president – Obama, the Manchurian candidate of the Trilateral Commission.

NOTES

1 See http://www.duboisweb.org/greatbarrington.html

2 Berg is a former deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, former candidate for Pennsylvania governor and

US senator in the Democragtic primaries, former Democratic county chairman for Montgomery County, PA,

and former Democratic State Commiteeman for Pennsylvania. A summary of Berg’s highly persuasive

arguments are included in the appendix to this book.

3 Ruth Ndesandjo, originally Ruth Nidesand, was born in U.S. in the late 1940s, and became the third known

wife of Barack Obama Senior. Ruth works today as a private Kindergarten director in Kenya. Ruth's two sons

by Barack Obama Senior are Mark and David; she has another son named Joseph Ndesandjo (born around

1980) from a subsequent marriage to a Tanzanian. David died young. Mark Ndesandjo has resided since 2002

in Shenzhen, China, where he runs an Internet company called WorldNexus.

4 Jerome Corsi points out (Obama Nation, p. 218) that Stanley Armour Dunham’s mother, Ruth Armour

Dunham, committed suicide in 1926 when she was 26 years of age after having been abandoned by her

husband. It was Stanley who discovered the body of his own mother. Corsi notes that David Axelrod’s father

also took his own life, and suggests that Obama Senior drank and drove himself to death.

5 Michelle Obama blurted out on July 10, 2008 in regard to Obama’s mother Ann that she had been “very

young and very single when she had him.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/10/michelle-obama-talksabou_

n_111975.html

6 Even Obama’s birth is shrouded in mystery. The alleged birth certificate exhibited by Obama on his

campaign web site lacks the raised seal which is indispensable to demonstrate authenticity. This leaves open

such issues as: was Obama born in the US? Is he in fact a stateless person? The blogger Texas Darlin

propounds the following questions for Obama: ‘Where did Ann Dunham live while she was pregnant with

Barack, especially the 6 months from Feb. to Aug. 1961? Reportedly her parents were embarrassed and upset

about her pregnancy. Obama Sr. was reportedly living in a dorm at the time. Where did Ann deliver Barack?

His “birth certificate” doesn’t say, and I guess he’s lost the original? (Although, it’s very interesting to note

that Obama provides details of his birth weight in Dreams from My Father — where did that info come

from?) Wikipedia and other sources say that Barack was born at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, but

are there any records of this? Why does Barack’s “certification of birth” say “Date Filed” at the bottom, when

the other Honolulu birth certificate on the same form that we found says “Date Accepted”? Is it possible that

Barack was born someplace outside Honolulu, perhaps someplace outside the country (maybe someplace

closer than Kenya), and that Ann applied for a “late arrival” birth certificate after-the-fact, which the State of

Hawaii apparently allows under certain circumstances? Is it possible that leftist/Marxist foreign friends of

Ann’s at the Univ. of Hawaii referred her to a location outside the US to complete her pregnancy and deliver

her baby? Did Ann drop out of the University when she was pregnant? If so, for how long? Does the fact that

Ann was a minor when Barack was conceived relate to these events? What was the legal age for getting

married in Hawaii in 1961? Who was with Ann at the time she delivered Barack? Parents, Obama Sr., or

both? Why did Ann travel to Mercer Island with her newborn, and did Obama Sr. or her mother accompany

her? Why hasn’t the Obama campaign made Ann’s mother (and Barack’s grandmother), Madelyn Dunham

(now 84), available? Don’t presidential candidates at least minimally introduce immediate relatives to the

general public? It seems that Obama is treating his grandmother like a big mystery. Why did Barack Obama

make a big to-do about, and act as CO-SPONSOR for, legislation in early 08 that was introduced by his

supporter Claire McCaskill resolving questions about McCain’s eligibility to be President? Is it true that

Obama favored a law that would allow any citizen born outside the US to be eligible for POTUS? Why did

McCaskill, rather than a Republican, introduce this legislation?’ (Texas Darlin,

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/obama-birth-mystery-cont/#more-3196) Texas Darlin later published

an essay by “Judah Benjamin” which argued that ‘Barack Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his

Indonesian step-father, and “Barry Soetoro” acquired Indonesian citizenship as a result of that adoption AND

Notes 427

that he (Soetoro/Obama) may STILL hold Indonesian citizenship today.

(http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/30/the-paper-trail-obamas-indonesian-background/#more-3881)

7 See also Reverend James David Manning, “The Trinity of Hell,” May 10, 2008,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejTmistHFw0.

8 http://theobamafile.com/ObamaReligion.htm

9 http://theobamafile.com/ObamaReligion.htm

10 http://laotze.blogspot.com/2007/01/tracking-down-obama-in-indonesia-part-3.html

11 http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/chicago-pd-meet-to-be-scheduled-more-high-pricelawyers-

diggcom-served/#comments

12 Fanon citations are from The Wretched of the Earth, chapter VI, conclusion, transl. Dominic Tweedie.

13 Reasononline, September 5, 2008, http://www.reason.com/news/show/128461.html.

14 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/us/politics/07community.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

15 John Judis has noted that by the time Obama was ready to quit his foundation-funded community organizer

job to advance to the higher levels of counter-insurgency, he had become well aware of the futility,

hopelessness, and despair which are the typical product of the hyper-parochial, anti-political, and antiauthoritarian

or anti-leadership Alinskyite model of divide and conquer politics. At a conference of

Alinskyite operatives held at Harvard in October 1987, Obama told fellow operative Jerry Kellman that he

was bailing out in favor of a law degree, a career, a family, and financial stability. Obama appears to have

used the race issue to cover his retreat: he spoke of the fact that some Alinksyite micro-projects had turned to

anti-black racism. One of these was the Save Our Neighborhoods/Save Our Cities (SON/SOC, created in

early 1984) counterinsurgency project, which accused real estate brokers of block-busting previously white

blue-collar ethnic neighborhoods to promote an influx of super-exploited blacks. Obama pretended to be

shocked by the racist outbursts that came out of the SON/SOC, and obviously found this a welcome pretext

for departing for the Harvard boutique. In reality, racism of some kind is very frequently a product of the

Alinsky particularist-parochialist micro-organizing method. As Judis points out, one of Alinsky’s original

projects, the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council, had supported the racist populist George Wallace

during the 1960s. This kind of fragmentation along racial and localist lines is exactly what the financiers who

fund these projects desire and are willing to pay for. The SON/SOC case is merely the reductio ad absurdum

of bankruptcy and counter-productive nature of the entire Alinsky method. According to Judis, Obama

summed up his views in an article published in the now defunct magazine Illinois Issues; the article would

eventually appear in an the anthology edited by Peg Knoepfle and entitled After Alinsky: Community

Organizing in Illinois (Springfield, IL: Sangamon State University, 1990), online at

http://www.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm and

http://civic.uis.edu/Alinsky/AlinskyHomePage.htm. Judis, perhaps because he is now himself funded by the

Carnegie Endowment, cannot see that the goal of the whole Alinsky exercise is to keep subject populations

impotent in the face of the institutions controlled by international finance capital. The alternative to the dead

end of Alinsky methods is a broad national coalition or united front of the main components of working

people and their allies, such as the FDR coalition or the convergence of the student movement, the peace

movement, the black movement, and the labor movement that Martin Luther King was trying to promote at

the time of his assassination. Judis does point out the MLK was strongly opposed by Alinsky, showing the

latter’s conscious role as a wrecker and saboteur. See John Judis, “The Creation Myth: What Barack Obama

Won’t Tell You About his Community Organizing Past,” New Republic, September 10, 2008.

16 http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/16th_Issue/vs2.html

17 http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1303/Jacoby/Jacoby.html

18 http://falsani.blogspot.com/2008/04/barack-Obama-2004-god-factor-interview.html.

19 The line is supposedly borrowed from Malcolm X after the Kennedy assassination; Kennedy was

assassinated by the CIA operations directorate, as Joan Mellen has shown in her Farewell to Justice. Malcolm

X’s remark was therefore a piece of arrant stupidity and gullibility.

428 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

20 See Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA (Joshua Tree CA: Progressive press,

2005ff.).

21 Hyde Park Herald, September 19, 2008, cited by Ryan Lizza, “Making It,” New Yorker, July 21, 2008,

emphasis added.

22 Incredibly enough, historian Herbert Parmet wrote of Richard Nixon that “It would do a great injustice to

deny [Nixon’s] intellectual and spiritual commitment to racial equality.” As Michael Lind comments, “In fact,

Nixon’s purpose in reviving and implementing the Philadelphia Plan was to split the Democratic coalition by

pitting white labor against the black civil rights movement.” See Lind, Up From Conservatism (New York:

The Free Press, 1996), p. 192.

23 See my Obama: The Postmodern Coup (2008).

24 According to a recent Washington Post account, ‘A few years ago, executives at the prestigious University

of Chicago Medical Center were concerned that an increasing number of patients were arriving at their

emergency room with what the executives considered to be non-urgent complaints. The visits were costly to

the hospital, and many of the patients, coming from the surrounding South Side neighborhood, were poor and

uninsured. Michelle Obama, an executive at the medical center, launched an innovative program to steer the

patients to existing neighborhood clinics to deal with their health needs. That effort, in time, inspired a

broader program the hospital now calls its Urban Health Initiative. To ensure community support, Michelle

Obama and others in late 2006 recommended that the hospital hire the firm of David Axelrod, who a few

months later became the chief strategist for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. … Axelrod’s firm warned

hospital executives in its May 2007 presentation that, although many people welcomed the initiative, primarycare

doctors opposed it as a break with the center’s commitment to the community. Opinion research showed

that a small but passionate group of people already considered the hospital to be elitist, arrogant and lacking

in “cultural empathy” for the surrounding economically depressed South Side neighborhood, according to a

draft report obtained by The Washington Post. Some doctors in focus groups dismissed local health clinics as

“wholly inadequate.” Quentin Young, a local physician whose five-doctor medical office lists Barack Obama

among its patients, said that in past decades the South Side often viewed the institution as a “citadel of

exclusion,” more interested in research than the well-being of its neighbors. …The hospital told state

regulators it spent $10 million on charity care for the poor in fiscal 2007 -- 1.3 percent of its total hospital

expenses, according to an analysis performed for The Washington Post by the bipartisan, nonprofit Center for

Tax and Budget Accountability. That is below the 2.1 percent average for nonprofit hospitals in Cook County.

As a nonprofit, the University of Chicago Medical Center receives annual tax breaks worth nearly five times

as much as it spends on charity care, the analysis found. Still, Quentin Young, the South Side physician,

described the medical center’s level of charity spending as “ludicrous.” Young, known in Chicago for having

been the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s personal physician, is chairman of the Health and Medicine Policy

Research Group, a Chicago-based nonprofit that advocates health-care reform. Young considered himself an

ally of Barack Obama while he was a state legislator. “That’s shameful,” Young said of the percentages.

“They are arguably, if not defrauding, then at least taking advantage of a public subsidy. We would like to see

them give more than the minimum. The need is there.” [A] hospital report quotes Michelle Obama as saying,

“The world is seeping in, and our salvation will be the success of our partners” at local clinics…. Edward

Novak, president of Chicago’s Sacred Heart Hospital, declined to discuss the center’s initiative in particular

but dismissed as “bull” attempts to justify such programs as good for patients. “What they’re really saying is,

‘Don’t use our emergency room because it will cost us money, and we don’t want the public-aid population,’

“ Novak said. An April 2007 draft report from the medical center’s polling firm, Peter D. Hart Research

Associates, said focus groups suggested that “enough latent suspicion toward the hospital and university as

elitist exists to ensure that a political attack against the Urban Health Initiative as deceptive and self-serving

would find fertile ground.” While most of those surveyed expressed favorable views of the center and its

program, critics complained of arrogance and a lack of empathy, the report said. “More than a few staff

members -- particularly medical staff -- express strongly worded concern or disappointment with UCMC in its

commitment to the community,” the report said. … “This new health initiative is not really about helping the

Notes 429

residents of the South Side of Chicago. It is simply a way for the University of Chicago Medical Center to

save money and reduce costs by serving fewer poor people without health insurance.” “I’ve had some

complaints from my constituents,” said Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, a former teacher who represents

Chicago’s 4th Ward and who will be an Obama delegate at the Democratic National Convention. “It’s hard to

know whether this is motivated by the interests of the patients or by the financial interests of the medical

center.”… Jeffrey Schaider, chairman of emergency medicine at nearby John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook

County, also is skeptical. Schaider said his emergency room welcomes all patients, whether or not their

maladies ultimately prove urgent. Lower-income workers also often find it difficult to visit clinics, which

have limited hours, he said.’ (Joe Stephens, “Obama Camp Has Many Ties to Wife’s Employer,” Washington

Post, August 22, 2008)

25 Washington Post, August 12, 2007.

26 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html

27 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html

28 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmEyN2RkNzcwYzgyZDY2MDBiY2U5MjJlZGMwNDM2ODg=

29 Concerning Michelle’s extensive foundation connections, Stanley Kurtz of the National Review writes:

‘Michelle… had been executive director of Public Allies Chicago since 1991. Public Allies Chicago currently

partners with the Asset-Based Community Development Institute at Northwestern University, led by noted

community organizers John McKnight and Jody Kretzman. Michelle and Barack both have close links to

Public Allies, to the Asset-Based Community Development Institute, to McKnight and to Kretzman. The

Asset-Based Community Development Institute and its leaders are closely tied to the Gamaliel Foundation.

Barack himself worked directly with the co-founder and Executive Director of the Gamaliel Foundation,

Gregory Galluzzo…. the Gamaliel Foundation is guided by an extreme, anti-American ideology, much like

Revered Wright’s. In other words, Both Michelle and Barack Obama were part of a tightly knit network of

Gamaliel Foundation organizers, and the guiding ideology of Gamaliel is deeply radical and anti-American.’

(Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online, “The Corner,” August 22, 2008) As for Barky, he was a founding

member of the board of directors of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before Michelle became the founding

executive director of Public Allies Chicago in early 1993…. Obama also served on the board of directors of

the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and

the Lugenia Burns Hope Center, which dealt with 1,100 people thrown off welfare. He also served on the

board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for

Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center. The Lugenia Burns Hope Center, another

povertician operation, specialized in moving former welfare recipients to low-wage jobs after Aid to Mothers

With Dependent Children, a part of the FDR Social Security Act of 1935, had been abolished by Clinton. The

Lugenia Burns is a foundation-funded operation evidently tasked with preventing a broad-based political

rebellion against the abolition of Social Security; the Lugenia Burns has received grants from the W.K.

Kellogg Foundation and other foundations controlled by the ruling elite.

30 http://www.opednews.com/author/author58.html

31 ‘On October 1, 2006, Mayor Richard Daley appointed Martin Nesbitt as Chairperson of the Chicago

Housing Authority succeeding Sharon Gist Gilliam. Gist Gilliam assumed the role of interim CEO upon the

resignation of Terry Peterson on Sept. 30, 2006. Mr. Nesbitt was appointed as a Commissioner of the

Authority on July 9, 2003. He served as Vice Chairperson of the Board since January 17, 2006. Mr. Nesbitt is

president of PRG Parking Management, also known as the Parking Spot, and manages the strategic and

operating services of the off-airport parking facilities. Mr. Nesbitt is also vice president of the Pritzker Realty

Group, L.P. where he procures new real estate investment opportunities, retail investments and developments

for the Pritzker Group.’ http://www.thecha.org/aboutus/martin_nesbitt.html

32 Ben Smith, “Ax On Ayers,” Politico, February 26, 2008.

33 http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3FC289D8-3048-5C12-009AD5180C22FF0B

34 http://kimallen.sheepdogdesign.net/cinnamon/2007/06/thomas-g-ayers-1915-2007.html

430 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

35 Ayers and Oughton had founded the Jesse James Gang out of the University of Michigan SDS chapter, with

the help of a suspected agent provocateur named Jim Mellen. ‘Bill and Diana… became more active in the

Ann Arbor chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Ayers had been a member of the SDS radical

education project for several years at a time when SDS was still a loosely-organized group of students who

believed in experimental schools and community projects as vehicles for change. In June, 1968, they attended

an SDS convention in East Lansing where a sharp split was emerging between the Progressive Labor Party

(PL) and the cultural revolutionaries who naturally attracted Bill and Diana. … After the convention Diana

and Bill spent part of the summer in Chicago working in the SDS national office where they had intense

political discussion with Mike Klonsky, an SDS national officer, and Bernardine Dohrn, a later leader of the

Weathermen. Diana and Bill became convinced that direct action rather than education and peaceful reform

were the way to change society. Diana was deeply affected by the demonstrations at the Democratic Party

convention that August and what she and the SDS and eventually the Walker Commission felt was a “police

riot.” At the peak of the violence, she called her sister, Carol, in Chicago for $150 to help bail Tom Hayden,

one of the founders of SDS in 1962, out of jail. A day or two later she called again and said she and Bill were

leaving the city because “it’s getting too rough.” It was also during that summer that Bill and Diana turned

full-scale toward the cultural revolution. They developed a taste for “acid” rock at ear-shattering volume.

They cut off their hair and began to wear hippy headbands and wire-rimmed glasses. They took LSD,

sometimes with another couple. On one occasion one of the group ran out into the street naked but was

coaxed back inside before the police came. They returned to Ann Arbor that fall in an activist mood. At the

first meeting of the Ann Arbor SDS on Sept. 24, 1968, a sharp division in the group was apparent. Diana and

Bill along with some 40 other radicals banded together against the moderates and formed a faction which they

called “The Jesse James Gang.” The gang declared themselves revolutionary gangsters. They held peaceful

methods of reform in contempt. They urged direct action instead of talk, individual violent confrontations

instead of big peace marches. Contained in their still half-formed ideas about the role of America in the world

and white radicals in America, was the germ of the Weatherman analysis which would later call for violence.

The gang disrupted SDS meetings and made vicious personal attacks on their opponents. The meetings

frequently degenerated into brawls. The gang shouted and heckled and even threw eggs and tomatoes at

moderate speakers. They often let it be known that their opponents were running the risk of physical beatings.

Bill Ayers, Diana at his side, spoke against the failure of education to change people and described the gang

as “the arms of liberation inside the monster.” “We are tired of tiptoeing up to society and asking for reform.

We’re ready to kick it,” he told one opponent. The behind-the-scenes leader of the Jesse James Gang was a

mysterious, 31-year-old man named Jim Mellen who appeared out of nowhere in Ann Arbor that Fall. No one

knew where he had gone to school or why he had come to the University of Michigan. Although he was the

major intellectual force behind the gang, Mellen carefully avoided any position of formal authority. A rumor

began circulating among his critics that Mellen was an agent provocateur sent by the Central

Intelligence Agency to destroy SDS and the radical movement in Michigan. Ten months later, after

helping to write the Weatherman manifesto and playing a part in the June, 1969, SDS convention which

destroyed the organization, Mellen faded from the Ann Arbor radical scene as mysteriously as he had arrived.

Within a period of a few weeks the Jesse James Gang triumphed within the SDS chapter at Ann Arbor. Early

in October, 1968, the moderates decided they had had enough and walked out to form their own group.

Through psychological warfare and vague threats of violence, the gang had captured the single most

important SDS chapter in Michigan, which automatically gave them a powerful voice in the national

organization. … Ayers rose to a position of strength with the gang because of his ability to dominate groups

through a combination of charm and the volume of his voice. Handsome and brash, he was a notorious lady’s

man who did not hide his promiscuity from Diana. Diana told friends that although she was hurt by Bill’s

infidelity, it made her redouble her efforts to be a true revolutionary. Stung by frequent jibes that she could

afford to be one because her daddy was rich, Diana struggled to make her own mark in the movement.

(Lucinda Franks and Thomas Powers, “Story of Diana--The Making of a Terrorist--III--Angry, She Returns to

US,” United Press International 1970, emphasis added)

Notes 431

36 Kathy Boudin was born in 1943 to a Jewish family with a long left-wing history, and was raised in

Greenwich Village, New York City. Her great-uncle was Louis Boudonovitch Boudin, a Marxist theorist. She

was the niece of I.F. Stone, the leftist Washington reporter and critic of Plato. Her father, attorney Leonard

Boudin, had represented such controversial clients as Fidel Castro, Paul Robeson, and Daniel Ellsberg of the

RAND Corporation. Leonard Boudin was an active member of the National Lawyers Guild. Kathy’s older

brother, Michael Boudin, joined the establishment law firm of Covington and Burling, where Dean Acheson

and William P. Bundy had been partners. Michael Boudin is currently the Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston. Kathy Boudin was convicted of one count of felony murder

and armed robbery, and was sentenced to twenty years to life under a plea bargain for her role in the 1981

Brinks Robbery near New York City in which the Weathermen killed two policemen and an armed guard.

Boudin was released in September 2003 amid the protests of the families of her victims. (Wikipedia)

37 Cited as Carter and the PIT.

38 Abby Rockefeller, the sister of David, Nelson, John D. III, Laurance, and Winthrop, reportedly joined SDS

for a time in the early 1960s. (Carter and the PIT, 25) In the winter of 2007, there were isolated signs of an

ongoing salon frequented by SDS nostalgics and members of the extended Rockefeller family in Cambridge,

Massachusetts.

39 After the Days of Rage, federal indictments were handed down against most of the publicly identified

Weathermen. As a result, the project moved into an “underground” phase characterized by heavy drug use,

institutionalization of polymorphous perversion (“sexual liberation”), and intensive use of attack group

methods of self-brainwashing (Maoist “criticism and self-criticism”), all staged in the “programmed paranoia”

of a police round-up threatened at any minute. The Spring 1970 escalation of the war in Cambodia provided

the pretext for Weatherman controllers to escalate the group’s activities to terrorist bombings: the University

of Washington ROTC building, the New York police headquarters, the Washington DC capitol building, etc.

(Carter and the PIT, 121) These are the people that Obama finds congenial.

40 Bob Black, “Up Sand Creek Without A Paddle,” http://www.pirateballerina.com/images/bobblack.html,

also posted at Discoverthenetworks.org,

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Up%20Sand%20Creek%20Without%20a%20Paddle2.html.

Some internet sources attempt to attack the reliability of Bob Black, but he is taken seriously by Sherrie

Gosset, the associate editor of the neocon site Accuracy in Media, who reports: ‘American anarchist Bob

Black also skewered Churchill’s credibility in a detailed essay, “Up Sand Creek Without a Paddle.” He assails

Churchill’s “bigoted and bogus” ‘scholarship’, and asks how this “hustler” has been able to pass off his

“racist fantasies as scholarship” and gain tenure at UC. He has no PhD and reportedly can’t get published in

even the most mediocre academic journals, so he sticks with leftist or racialist nationalist periodicals.

Churchill “gets flown all over the country to address audiences of white leftists who pay him to guilt-trip

them. How sweet the pain!” writes Black. Professor Brown explains that “In Indian activist circles, prestige

and legitimacy often accrue to those who most successfully express an oppositional identity.” Which reminds

us, the University of Colorado media relations people did not return our phone call yet asking whether it’s

true the university investigated Churchill’s Indian identity claims ten years ago. He’s a “New Left/New Age

ersatz Indian,” who might have a dream catcher hanging over his bed, but is just a “well-funded pale face”

who is a “Red racist” but not a “red man” Black says. Indeed, this ‘injun of profit’ has parlayed his “Indianness”

into a gig raking in close to $100,000 working for the same evil capitalist American government he

condemned 9/11 victims for supporting.’ (See Sherrie Gosset, “Churchill: Ward of the State,”

campusreportonline.net, February 15, 2005)

41 http://carcopy.blogspot.com/2005/02/denver-post-january-18-1987.html

42 http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/churchill.html

43 “Prof: ‘I Want US Off the Planet.’ Embattled Terror-Condoning Academic Says He Wants America ‘Out of

Existence,’” World Net Daily, February 7, 2005.

44 Another Weatherman who is sometimes left out of the list of leading members is Bo Burlingham. The

neocon web site Militant Islam Monitor.org cites ‘an excerpt from the proceedings of the House Judiciary

432 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

Committee, on 22 September, 1976, in which Congressman Larry McDonald (D-GA) is giving this rundown

of the TNI [Trans National Institute]: Robert “Bo” Burlingham, a prominent functionary of IPS’s Cambridge

[Massachusetts] subsidiary, was indicted in a bombing conspiracy in 1972, but charges were dropped when

his Weathermen co-defendants could not be apprehended. Burlingham said in 1974: “I don’t think an

equitable, fair, free democratic world order is going to happen any other way than through violence.”’ See

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2296. Burlingham may have hosted Obama’s friend

Bernardine Dohrn during her trip to Europe to meet the deserters’ movement, which was heavily penetrated

by the CIA, in 1968; see http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.UnityNow3.

45 Ayers and Dohrn are also close to other Democratic Party bigwigs besides Obama. They are friends of

Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. As Larry Johnson reports,

‘…actor and activist Peter Coyote talking on the 1996 Democratic Convention in Chicago on his website

mentions a couple of times about having to inform his wife “Martha that I’m dragging her to the apartment of

old friends, ex-Weathermen, Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, hosting a party for Senator Leahy. Perhaps

Edward Said will be there. I urge her to come by promising that the event will push the edges of the envelope

of her centrist politics.”’ Edward Said was a member of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation networks of

British intelligence, serviced by the late Italian left socialist Lelio Basso, Ken Coates, and the Yugoslav

dissident Vladimir Dedijier, with all of whom Said appeared at a conference in Linz, Austria, in September

1972. http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/29/ayers-Obama-philanthropy-corruption-what-big-media-refusesto-

disclose-about-Obamas-checkered-past-in-chicago-machine-politics/

46 http://www.schwarzreport.org/Newsletters/1970/february1,70.htm

47 According to U.S. Labor Party, Carter and the Party of International Terrorism (New York, 1976),

Bernardine Dohrn attended the University of Chicago Law School and graduated in 1965; here she worked

together with Dean Edward H. Levi, who later became Attorney General for Ford in March 1975. The USLP

writers regard Levi as a Rockefeller family operative who was involved with Marcus Raskin and the Black P.

Stone street gang of Chicago. From 1967-1970, Dohrn worked for the National Lawyers Guild, a group which

had been accused by J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI of being a communist front in the 1950s and may well have

been implicated in cold war intelligence activities. At the same time, Dohrn was then involved with the

American Deserters Committee, a group that was active in the US and Europe” (Carter and the PIT, 120)

48 http://www.schwarzreport.org/Newsletters/1970/february1,70.htm.

49 http://www.schwarzreport.org/Newsletters/1970/february1,70.htm

50 http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/repost-obamas-ultra-leftist-backers.html

51 http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/clinton_campaign_obama_must_an.html

52 http://www.markrudd.com/historical-writing/the-death-of-sds/

53 As of 2008, the board of the Woods Fund is listed as: Laura S. Washington, Board Chair, Ida B. Wells-

Barnett University Professor and Fellow of the DePaul Humanities Center; Jesus G. Garcia, Vice Chair,

Executive Director, Little Village Community Development Corporation; William C. Ayers, Distinguished

Professor of Education, University of Illinois at Chicago.

54 http://billayers.wordpress.com/category/articles/

55 http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0423ss.html

56 http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-sent-obama.html

57 http://pundita.blogspot.com/2008/05/william-ayers-plan-to-turn-americas_20.html

58 In mid-August 2008, the University of Illinois attempted to prevent researchers from gaining access to the

archives of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge, which constituted some 70 linear feet of documents now

housed at the Richard J. Daley Library at the Chicago Circle Campus. This is also where the Weatherman

terrorist bomber Bill Ayers enjoys the fruits of his tenured professorship. After this high-handed outrage by a

public institution became known, President White of the University of Illinois was bombarded by emails of

protest demanding that the papers be made available. The University of Illinois announced as this book is

going to press that the papers would be opened to the public on August 26, 2008. We hope to include this

material in future editions of this book. The papers are likely to show that Ayers and Obama were no mere

Notes 433

acquaintances, but rather constituted a mutual admiration and career assistance society, spending hundreds of

hours together in meetings and collaborating in innumerable ways. (Stanley Kurtz, “Chicago Annenberg

Challenge Shutdown? A cover-up in the making?” National Review Online, August 18, 2008).

59 http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/05/does-obama-support-reparations.html

60 Honolulu Star-Bulletin, July 28, 2008, http://starbulletin.com/2008/07/28/news/story05.html

61 http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/Trinity_Church_Obama/2008/06/03/101086.html

62 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/23/the-monster-in-the-room-does-obama-support-reparations/

63 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/23/the-monster-in-the-room-does-obama-support-reparations/

64 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/Obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html

65 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hofstadter

66 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile_Durkheim

67 http://www.hydeparkhistory.org/herald/1313HiddenHistory.pdf

68 http://archive.rockefeller.edu/publications/conferences/saunier.pdf, emphasis added.

69 http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/launder/regions/2002/0201elf.htm

70 Another of Obama’s super-rich Middle East friends is a certain Khalid al Mansour, who has served as

moneybags for Barky. Former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton has reported: ‘“I was introduced to

him by a friend who was raising money for him and the friends name was Dr. Khalid al Mansour from Texas.

He is the principle adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama. He wrote to me about

him and his introduction was ‘there is a young man that has applied to Harvard and I know that you have a

few friends left there because you used to go up there to speak, would you please write a letter in support of

him?’…I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard saying to them I thought there was a genius

that was going to be available and I sure hoped they would treat him kindly.” Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tario Al-

Mansour is an advisor to Heads of State and business leaders in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North

America. He has been actively involved in structuring investments and joint ventures worldwide for over 35

years. Dr. Al-Mansour was also responsible for the Africa investment activities of Kingdom Holdings, Saudi

Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal’s investment company. During his career, Dr. Al-Mansour has been a guest

lecturer at Harvard University, Bombay University, Columbia University, UCLA, University of Kenya,

London School of Economics and the University of Ghana.’ This profile is redolent of intelligence

community connections. See Texasdarlin, September 1, 2008.

71 Jerome Corsi, Obama Nation (New York: Simon and Shuster, 2008), p. 173.

72 (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aMzI3I6BAo_U&refer=politics)

74 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/27/recently-unsealed-documents-reveal-Obama-deeply-embroiled-inrezko-

case/#more-3276

75 http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27939

76 ‘Ever since the Obama camp announced Patti Solis-Doyle would be joining their team as the Chief of Staff

for the yet-to-be-chosen Vice Presidential candidate, I’ve been wondering if she was always a part of their

team. After all, Taylor Marsh informs us, and others confirm that Solis-Doyle has a 20 year relationship with

David Axelrod, Obama’s puppet master. Further, over at No Quarter, Larry Johnson reveals that Solis-Doyle

used to work for Richard Daley and her brother is a Chicago alderman. Clearly, the Solis-Doyle, Axelrod ties

run deep. In addition, Steve Clemons, over at the Washington Note reported back in March: “Patti Solis

Doyle allegedly bred a lot of ill will inside the campaign among staffers. Many Clinton aides talked about

how she had a wall erected between herself and the rest of the campaign staff in Iowa. Others who had been

around for Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign talked about how Patti Solis Doyle had shut down the campaign

office for two full days in order to watch the collected DVD set of “Grey’s Anatomy.” I’m not kidding. On

top of those clear failures, she also horribly mismanaged the Clinton campaign financially. One Clinton

backer said what everyone was thinking: “Who can blame Obama for rewarding Patti? He would never be the

nominee without her,” one person who has worked for both Clintons and remains close to them said. The

question isn’t whether she helped him, it’s whether she did it knowingly. Had Hillary won Iowa, the outcome

would probably be very different today. Patti Solis-Doyle was ultimately the architect of Hillary’s Iowa defeat

434 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

(Obama and Edward’s tactics excluded). In my estimation, Patti Solis-Doyle was a mole.’

(http://donedems.com/2008/06/17/patti-solis-doyle-obama-mole/)

77 John Fund, “Obama Should Come Clean on Ayers, Rezko, and the Iraqi Billionaire,” Wall Street Journal,

August 30, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122005063234084813.html?mod=rss_opinion_main)

78 Washington Times, February 29, 2008; http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/ring022908.html, accessed Sept.

9, 2008.

79 Andrew Walden, “Iraqi Billionaire Threatens Reporters Investigating Rezko Affair,” Accuracy in Media,

August 24, 2008.

80 See http://www.gop.com/Print/?Guid=21066cde-d75a-48c9-a05c-69f32e30015a&pg=news

81 (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aMzI3I6BAo_U&refer=politics)

82 Obama hired fellow Harvard Law alumnus and election law expert Thomas Johnson to challenge the

nominating petitions of the four other candidates, thus getting them thrown off the ballot.

83 (John Kass, “In the spirit of the great Second City, I give you a new musical “Obama’s Lot,” Chicago

Tribune, January 30, 2008)

84 http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3FC289D8-3048-5C12-009AD5180C22FF0B

85 Ayers also got some great reviews over the years from the Chicago leftist chronicler Studs Terkel. Terkel

commented that this book showed that “William Ayers is as sensitive and gifted a chronicler as he is a

teacher. His odyssey - for it is far more than just a tour - through the juvenile court is Dickensian in its tragic,

maddening detail and dimension; and yet it is strangely hopeful.” For Ayers’ Teaching Towards Freedom

Terkel wrote: “William Ayers is as sensitive and gifted a chronicler as he is a teacher.” For Fugitive Days, it

was “A memoir that is, in effect, a deeply moving elegy to all those young dreamers who tried to live decently

in an indecent world. Ayers provides a tribute to those better angels of ourselves.” This insane delirium goes

to show that Studs went soft on terrorism in his old age.

86 The reality of this speech is the object of much skepticism: “Obama’s ad on anti-war speech is staged. The

speech was given at an anti-war rally on Oct. 2, 2002…..Jessie Jackson was the main speaker. Obama’s

speech went mainly unnoticed. He had not yet announced his run for the Senate, although now he claims he

risked his political career. Of course we know that there was NO risk in running against Alan Keyes, all

Obama had to do was breathe. Gonyea says…..”In an age of YouTube there is no video of the speech and

only a snippet of audio. The Obama campaign has reenacted the speech in a campaign ad they are now

running.” If there is no video available it would seem the entire Obama anti-war speech on which he is basing

his Ad campaign may be faked. In fact the entire speech could be distorted.”

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/26/the-fake-iraq-war-speech-more-creative-embellishments/

87 But compare the report of former Chicago Tribune journalist Bill Glauber, who covered the October 2,

2002 rally and reports there were only 1,000 people, mostly older sixties radical types. The main speaker was

not Obama, but Jessie Jackson. Glauber vaguely remembers hearing Obama, but did not mention him in the

article he wrote that day. “I’m the guy who didn’t quote Barack Obama,” says Glauber.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88988093

88 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Crown

89 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/02/chicago-billionaire-industrialist-on-board-of-Obamas-mortgageprovider/#

more-3393

90 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/20/machinists-union-tells-it-like-it-is/

91 Feb 01, 2008 (Chicago Tribune - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX), “Obama’s

fundraising, rhetoric collide: Union says senator did little to save jobs.”

92 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/05/obamas-acorn/#more-3429

93 http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13491

94 http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=529&Itemid=1

95http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=529&Itemid=1

96 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blair_Hull#_note-fast#_note-fast

97 http://jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/107170.html

Notes 435

98 http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.339/pub_detail.asp

99 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blair_Hull

100 Ben Wallace-Wells, “Obama’s Narrator,” New York Times April 1, 2007.

101 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_%282004_U.S._Senate_candidate%29

102 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_%28Senate_candidate%29#_note-nyt1#_note-nyt1

103 http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0622041ryans1.html

104 http://www.dailypress.com/chi-0406220247jun22,0,6933700,full.story

105 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_%28Senate_candidate%29#_note-nyt1#_note-nyt1

106 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Barack_Obama

107 ‘In 2004, a national environmentalist entity created and managed by the Rockefeller family endorsed

Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator with little national reputation, in his race against other Democrats

in his Democratic primary race for United States senator. The League for Conservation Voters announced

they would “launch a new TV spot, titled ‘Rising Star,’” which would run regularly “through Election Day in

the Chicago media market. The League’s press release boasted that the promotion was expensive: “the ad buy

is a significant, six-figure purchase.” In the 2003-2004 campaign season (according to the Center for Public

Integrity), the League also paid $297,867 to the political consulting firm of David Axelrod, which was

managing Obama’s campaign. Axelrod and his firm AKP Message and Media shaped Obama’s political

image and today manage the Obama Presidential campaign top-down. The League of Conservation Voters

was founded by Laurance S. Rockefeller and his close associates. Among the current directors of the League

are Larry Rockefeller, son of Laurance (who died the year of the Obama Senate campaign); Wade Greene,

counselor to the Rockefeller family; Donald K. Ross, strategist for the Rockefeller family’s environ mental

and foundation activities; and Theodore Roosevelt, IV, partner of Felix Rohatyn at Lehman Brothers.

Roosevelt is the League’s honorary chairman and a longtime leader of the group. The League of Conservation

Voters works in tandem with the Partnership for New York City, in setting the agenda for New York City

Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The Partnership was founded by Laurance’s brother David Rockefeller. League

of Conservation Voters’ national board member Marcia Bystryn, who is executive director of the New York

State branch of the League, is also president of “Plan NYC-2030, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s planning

initiative. (http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/04/23/rockefellers-mid-wifed-birth-obamamania.html)

108 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

109 http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/21/right_and_Obama/

110 (http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_Obama/ObamaAfrica.htm)

111 http://eakenya.org/newsevents/article.htm?id=8

112 (http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_Obama/ObamaAfrica.htm)

113 (http://www.therudenews.com/archives/416)

114 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/us/politics/07Obama.html?pagewanted=print

115 http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html

116

117 http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/george-soros-backs-Obama-but-hedges-his-bets/

118 http://sweetness-light.com/archive/shocker-sorosmoveon-endorse-b-hussein-Obama

119

120 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/10/AR2008041004045_pf.html

121 http://www.g2mil.com/Bradley.htm

122 http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030906-stryker01.htm

123 http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May13/0,4670,IraqStrykersStruggle,00.html

124 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/10/AR2008041004045_pf.html

125 http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/04/le.02.html

126 See William Strauss and Neil Howe, Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069. (New

York: Perennial, 1992).

127 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/19106551/a_new_hope

436 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

128 http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/01/31/volcker-i-endorse-Obama/

129 http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2008/jun/04/tennessee-carter-endorses-Obama-others-superdelega/

130 http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sen.-rockefeller-endorses-Obama-2008-02-29.html

131 Mel Levine was a U.S. congressman, 1983-93. He is currently a partner in the law firm of Gibson, Dunne

and Krutcher. For some years he served as co-president of Builders for Peace, which sought to assist the

Middle East peace process. He represents yet another figure close to the left wing of the US intelligence

community.

132 http://www.observer.com/2008/Brzezinski-power-shouldnt-have-resigned

133 http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/15558

134

135 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/09/AR2008070901933.html

136 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/26/breaking-news-Obama-bombs/

137 http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/Obama-could-raise-100-million-in-june-fundraisers-say-2008-06-

09.html

138 http://paeditorsblog.blogspot.com/2008_03_16_archive.html

139 http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=39&t=000113&p=

140 Glenn Greenwald, http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/27/keith-olbermanns-bo-problem/#more-3290

141 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1972093/posts

142 http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/v-print/story/405156.html

143 The right-wing commentator who posted these remarks added, ‘I mean, at this rate, why not run on the

campaign slogan, “Immanentize the Eschaton”? (Jim Geraghty, March 5, 2008) We will return to this

question shortly.

144 http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/v-print/story/405156.html

145 http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/927/1/32/

146 http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/927/1/32/

147 http://www.cla.wayne.edu/polisci/kdk/Comparative/SOURCES/fascism.htm

148 http://www.discriminations.us/2007/07/framing_redux_redux.html

149 http://www.hippy.com/php/article-333.html

150 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/wright.transcript/

151 ‘At the NAACP meeting, Wright proudly propounded the racist contention that blacks have inherently

different “learning styles,” correctly citing as authority for this view Janice Hale of Wayne State University.’

Wright ‘praised the work of Geneva Smitherman of Michigan State University, who has called for the

selective incorporation of Ebonics into the curriculum in order to validate the black experience. Wright gave

another shout-out to the late Asa Hilliard of Georgia State University, who told us, Wright said, “how to fix

the schools.” Like Hale, Hilliard argued that disrupting the classroom through “impulsive interrupting and

loud talking” is inherently black.”’ (Heather MacDonald, ‘Poisonous “Authenticity” — Jeremiah Wright

draws on a long line of Afrocentric charlatans,’ City Journal, 29 April 2008)

152 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/wright.transcript/

153“Race, Genes and Justice: A Call to Reform the Presentation of Forensic DNA Evidence in Criminal

Trials,” Prof. Jonathan Kahn,

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=jonathan_kahn

154 I Corinthians Ch. 13 (KJV).

155 http://www.newsmax.com/morris/mccain_obama_polls/2008/07/27/116718.html

156 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/patriarchy1000-hillary_b_86408.html

157 http://video1.washingtontimes.com/debose/2008/03/Obama_troubles_hillary_boon.html

158 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C312153%2C00.html

159 http://obamaprincetonthesis.wordpress.com/

160 http://www.mytowntalks.com/politics/michelle-Obama-whitey-transcript.php

Notes 437

161 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/01/breaking-news-on-whitey-tape-from-fox-news-a-tv-network-hasthe-

tape/

162 From Hill Buzz; http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/04/breaking-news-from-hillbuzz/

163 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/02/thread-2-booman-blows-the-Obama-disinformation-campaign/

164 http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/default.aspx?mode=post&g=4468b2c5-a5aa-468d-8944-

56a8108cc31a&trackbacks=true#commentAnchor

165 http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_denies_a_rumor_and_questions_the_question.html;

noquarterusa.net

166 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/05/barack-punts-on-denial-of-michelle-tape/

167 http://theobamafile.com/ObamaCampaign.htm

168 See Tarpley et al., Obama -The Postmodern Coup: The Making of a Manchurian Candidate (Joshua Tree

CA: Progressive Press, 2008).

169 (New York: Basic Books, 2007), pp. 198-199.

170 http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120579535818243439.html

171 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Steele

172 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/04/texas-caucus-fraud/

173 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405

174 http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/globalists_love_global_warming.htm

175 http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/globalists_love_global_warming.htm

176 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000.

177 http://graniteidealism.com/2007/12/05/obama-to-issue-call-to-serve-vow-to-make-national-serviceimportant-

cause-of-his-presidency/

178 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJsdHoAy4aM

179 There was one candidate for the vice-presidential nomination who was not shy about pleading his own

cause: this was the rapper Ludacris, with whom Obama had discussed the welfare of American youth in

Chicago in late November 2007. In late July 2008, Ludacris launched his bid with this lyric:

I’m back on it like I just signed my record deal

Yeah the best is here, the Bentley Coup paint is dripping wet, it got sex appeal

Never should have hated

You never should’ve doubted him

With a slot in the president’s iPod Obama shattered ‘em

Said I handled his biz and I’m one of his favorite rappers

Well give Luda a special pardon if I’m ever in the slammer

Better yet put him in office, make me your vice president

Hillary hated on you, so that bitch is irrelevant

Jesse talking slick and apologizing for what?

If you said it then you meant it how you want it have a gut!

And all you other politicians trying to hate on my man,

watch us win a majority vote in every state on my man

You can’t stop what’s bout to happen, we bout to make history

The first black president is destined and it’s meant to be

The threats ain’t fazing us, the nooses or the jokes

So get off your ass, black people, it’s time to get out and vote!

Paint the White House black and I’m sure that’s got ‘em terrified

McCain don’t belong in any chair unless he’s paralyzed

Yeah I said it cause Bush is mentally handicapped

Ball up all of his speeches and I throw ‘em like candy wrap

438 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

‘cause what you talking I hear nothing even relevant

and you the worst of all 43 presidents

Get out and vote or the end will be near

The world is ready for change because Obama is here!

‘cause Obama is here

The world is ready for change because Obama is here!

Obama’s campaign attempted to distance itself from Obama’s friend Ludacris by issuing a statement,

while Barky himself said nothing. Experienced observers were watching for a statement beginning, “This is

not the Ludacris I knew.”

(http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/obama_ludacris_bff.html)

180 http://www.progressive.org/?q=mag_reed0508&disqus_reply=488404#comment-488404

181 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/02/the-bailout-ban.html

182 The wall of silence in the national media was all the more grotesque since the Chicago media had not been

able to ignore the three deaths: ‘CHICAGO (CBS) ― Activists fear gay African-Americans are being targeted

for murder. Two openly gay men were killed recently on the South Side, as CBS 2’s Mike Parker reports.

African-American gay and lesbian groups are talking about the murders of two openly gay Black men in the

past month. On November 17, 24-year-old Larry Bland was shot to death in his Englewood home. Bland, a

security guard at Northwestern Hospital was shot more than once after struggling with a man who had entered

the house through an unlocked basement door. Then on December 23, 47-year-old Donald Young, the choir

director at Trinity United Church of Christ, was shot multiple times in his South Side apartment. His

roommate found his body. “We’re calling on the police department to let the community know what’s going

on,” said Marc Loveless of the Coalition for Justice and Respect. “Are we under attack? Is this a serial

killer?” Chicago Police Department Acting Sept. Dana Starks said, “I understand the concerns of any group,

any community when it comes to homicide. As of right now, I cannot say whether there is a connection.” The

media services director of the church where Donald Young taught and led the choir, said, “Young did live an

openly gay lifestyle; that was his choice.” But she went on to call the Loveless statement, “self-serving.” She

also said the police are doing everything they can. The brother of victim Larry Bland says if the murder was a

hate crime, he would not be surprised. “Englewood? Come on. That’s why a lot of gay guys won’t come out,

because they fear for something like this to happen,” said Bland’s brother, Lynn. Starks says that “at this

time” there is no evidence the murders were hate crimes. But he told CBS 2, the investigations are still

underway.(Mike Parker, “African-American Gay Community Scared Over Deaths,” CBS2 Chicago, Dec 27,

2007)

183 “Margins of Error: Obama’s Shrinking Map,“

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/08/obama%e2%80%99s-flawed-race-strategy-why-the-black-votewon%

e2%80%99t-be-enough/

184 http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/25/partial-transcript-ralph-naders-comments/

185 http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/

186 http://www.theamericanmind.com/2008/05/24/too-much-sunshine-or-was-that-sunrise/

187 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=65449

188 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/23/AR2008072302903.html

189 http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?

postversion=2008061810

190 Clinton needed to say something like this: “I represent a clear majority of the Democratic Party primary

voters. This majority must rule, and will rule, despite what a discredited gaggle of unelected and

unaccountable party bosses and machine hacks may decree. The infamy and moral insanity of today’s

meeting of the Rules Committee shows that the Democratic National Committee has been seized by an

illegitimate insurgent group intent on carrying out a coup d’état. The Democratic National Committee has

Notes 439

been hijacked by Wall Street interests whose unspoken agenda is alien to the needs of the American people. I

call on Democrats to fight back. This is your party, and not the party of Howard Dean. My campaign is the

real Democratic Party. I call on my supporters to seize control of the party apparatus in every state, and to

make sure that my name will be on the ballot in November, so as to guarantee the American people the choice

of at least one candidate who is actually qualified to be president in this crisis. In the midst of war and

economic depression, we cannot permit another failed presidency on the part of yet another feckless and

incompetent demagogue who has come out of nowhere to contravene the clear will of the voters in his quest

for the highest office. Our national survival is once again at stake. Democrats, rally to me! Because of who I

am and because of the grave responsibilities which I face, I call upon you to support me, whatever may

happen. The Democratic Party is not the plaything of wealthy elitists. We are the New Deal Democrats, the

party of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, and with your help we will secure the future.” Perhaps

one day she will deliver a speech like this.

191 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/us/politics/28webnagourney.

html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1217283784-twg0i3ZZqdSzDNW4Zh4KMw

192 http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=28116

193 The website of this entity presents it in the following terms: ‘At a moment of critical global transitions, the

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, with support from the

Ford Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and a generous gift from Mr. David Rubenstein, has launched a

multi-year, bipartisan initiative to develop a sustainable and effective national security strategy for the United

States of America. Under the stewardship of honorary co-chairs George Shultz and Anthony Lake, the

Princeton Project brings together leading thinkers on national security from government, academe, business,

and the non-profit sector to analyze key issues and develop innovative responses to a range of national

security threats.’ (http://www.princeton.edu/~ppns/)

194 See my Obama – The Postmodern Coup for a discussion of the massive CFR 1980s Project.

195 See Webster G. Tarpley, “Lady Astor, Cliveden, and British Critics of Appeasement, 1936-1940,” (2001).

196 Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966),

581.

197 Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment (New York: Books in Focus, 1981), 275.

198In January, The Times had asked: “Why should it be necessary to recoil from the system of ‘Labor Service’

[Arbeitsdienst] instituted in Germany, merely because in that country it is immediately precedent in time and

openly preparatory to compulsory service in the Army?” (Daily Worker, June 6, 1938)

199A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (New York: Athenaeum, 1983), 189. Taylor claims

that “every newspaper in the country applauded the Munich settlement with the exception of Reynolds’

News.” (Taylor 1983, xxvii).

200Gaetano Salvemini, Prelude to World II (London: Victor Gollancz, 1953), 509, 510.

201Frederick L. Schuman, Europe on the Eve: The Crises of Diplomacy, 1933-39 (New York: Knopf, 1939),

335-6.

202 Clement Leibovitz and Alvin Finkel, In Our Time: The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion (New York:

Monthly Review, 1998), 21-2, 32.

203 http://www.cfr.org/publication/14004/democratic_debate_transcript_chicago.html

204 http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/07/Obama.pakistan/index.html

205 http://www.cfr.org/publication/14004/democratic_debate_transcript_chicago.html

206 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3434573&page=1

207 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/

content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032700007_2.html?sid=ST2008032700935

208 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/06/us_airstrikes_kill_pakistani_troops/

209 http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=ar&nid=194&ad=16-06-2008

210 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24000236-2703,00.html

211 http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080703.htm

440 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography

212 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/07/02/2008-07-

02_dont_bomb_iran_bush_warns_israel-1.html

213 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330891157&pagename

=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

214 http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/04/iran.threat/index.html

215 http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=245597

216 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/Brzezinski-warns-against_n_114999.html

217 Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 (Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin

Press, 1995), 298.

218 Equally useless and misleading are the 10 steps to close down an open society offered by the left liberal

gatekeeper and feminist Naomi Wolf in her recent book End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young

Patriot. Wolf, who once advised Al Gore on earth tones, has served on the board of the Woodhull Institute.

Here she totally ignores the central issue, which is the indispensable role of the fascist mass movement as a

way of making society impose fascism on itself. Here there are no storm troopers in the street, no march on

Rome; everything is top down. Wolf’s steps all assume that fascism (identified with Bush) is already in

power. Her ten steps: “1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy; 2. Create a gulag; 3. Develop a thug

caste; 4. Set up an internal surveillance system; 5. Harass citizens’ groups; 6. Engage in arbitrary detention

and release; 7. Target key individuals; 8. Control the press; 9. Dissent equals treason; 10. Suspend the rule of

law.” The stubborn refusal to address the fascist mass movement, which contains fervently idealistic students,

militant workers, and veterans as well as goons, blinds left liberals of this type to the way that fascism really

emerges. Wolf also still believes that the Reichstag was not arson by the Nazis, and her faith in the official

9/11 myth is still 100%.

219 See my 9/11 Synthetic Terror.

220 Emilio Gentile is Professor of Political Science at the University of Rome La Sapienza and Principal

Lecturer in History at the Rome Campus. He is a historian of fascism, best known for his interpretation of

fascism as a “political religion.” He is the author of several books, including The Sacralization of Politics in

Fascist Italy (Harvard University Press), The Struggle for Modernity: Nationalism, Futurism, and Fascism

(Praeger), The Origins of Fascist Ideology, 1918-1925 (Enigma), and Storia del partito fascista, 1919-1922:

movimento e milizia (Laterza).

221 http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/fallows-debates/6

222 For the following account, see Anthony Birley, Septimius Severus (London: Routledge, 1999), Tenney

Frank, An Economic History of Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1927). And Sir Paul Harvey, The

Oxford Companion to Classical Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984).