The Obama Plan for beating al Qaeda: talk them to death

2:30 AM March 17, the Obama residence:

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty ..." [click scribble scribble] "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed ... "[click scribble scribble] "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country..." [click scribble scribble] "So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror ..." [click] No, that might offend the Muslim vote.

[raising his voice] Hon, can you make a fresh pot of coffee and bring me my DVDs for the Zig Ziglar and Les Brown motivational speeches?

[shouted from the bedroom] "DO I LOOK LIKE HATTIE MCDANIEL TO YOU?"

That's okay, dear, you get your sleep. I'm just trying to write the most important speech of my life. [muttering] I'm surrounded by idiots. Every time she opens her mouth I fall six points in the polls. Then you'd think when everyone in Chicago starts referring to you as "Tony The Fixer" this would be a clear message to take a long vacation in Syria. And you'd think the church ladies would stop shrieking "Hallelujah Brother Barack!" long enough to yank the Wright DVDs on sale in the gift shop.

[scribble scribble scribble scribble] Okay, let's see how this floats.

[Brrrrrinnnng! Brrrrrinnnng!]

David Axelrod: [groggily] "Hullo?"

The eighth draft is ready. Tell me what you think.

Axelrod: [interrupting after the 50th paragraph] "For crying out loud, the entire Gettysburg Address is only two minutes long! You're making a Fidel Castro speech sound terse! What part of 'get to the point' don't you understand?"

The point happens to be that I was friends with both William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Sooner or later the public is going to see the pattern, so I need to construct a narrative where Bill's terrorist acts can be placed in a larger context of angst in America. See?

Axelrod: [shouting] "Will you leave the frickin campaign strategy to me? Listen, just get up there on the podium on Tuesday and deal with the problem at hand! [slamming down the phone] Next time, I run a professional actor for president.

Wattel Toys unveils Barack Obama talking doll

We at Wattel Toy Company are dedicated to educating children through play. So we are proud to present a doll that teaches children to answer embarrassing personal questions by telling a story.

After a few weeks of playing with the Obama Narrative Doll, children ages 4 to 8 won't need to agonize about whether to lie or tell the truth. They will grow up secure in the knowledge that there are no rights and wrongs; there are only narratives!

We're thrilled to give you a demonstration of our adorable doll, which we'll have in stores in time for this year's holiday shopping season:

Hi! I'm Barack Obama! Press my tummy to hear me say, "I wuv you."

Give me a hug to hear me tell narratives:

Look, Chicago is a small town. So there's nothing strange about the coincidence of my happening to find employment with a law firm that represented Rezmar after I turned down employment with Tony Rezko.

Look, Chicago is a big city. With all that's going on there how could I be expected to know that Tony was accused of ripping off a minorities economic program and raking in millions of dollars in the process?

Really? Penny Pritzker was involved in a subprime bank loan scheme that hurt minority home buyers in Chicago and around the United States? I never heard anything about it. And until I hear from Penny herself that she intended to hustle minorities she'll stay on as my campaign finance chair, she'll remain my friend, and I won't return any of her donations going back years.

I really don't like it that you're insinuating that powerful people who became key supporters of mine preyed on minorities. I'm a minority and Tony and Penny never preyed on me. They just happened to be the kind of people who were attracted to me.

Look, in my position I couldn't be expected to be involved in the problems of a few hundred apartment dwellers in my district; those things are for an alderman to deal with. I'm sorry to hear the apartments were in dangerously bad condition and that the city had to sue Rezmar to get the heat turned on during freezing weather. But until I hear from Tony himself that he intended to hurt those constituents of mine, he'll remain my friend.

Now who's hair splitting? Just because the apartments for seniors were only four blocks outside my state senate district, that doesn't mean I was doing Tony a favor by sending off a few form letters in support of the project's financing. The project was to have a wellness center and social services, so it's a shame it wasn't built in time for all those people who shivered in unheated apartments in Tony's other buildings.

What a question! Whose word are you going to take -- mine or that of a FBI mole? I can't recall exactly how often I visited Tony in his office but -- all the time? Really!

Well, give me the name of those three sources who said I was on the phone with Tony every day. I can't recall exactly how many times we talked on the phone over a period of 17 years but -- every day? Really!

For the last time I'm telling you that the house and lot purchases were so complicated that maybe only Nadhmi Auchi's accountants could understand them. But take my word that Tony and I did nothing wrong, and even if we did it was an honest mistake due to the complexity of the deals.

There is something you need to get straight. The Chicago press did not absolve me of wrongdoing after they interviewed me on March 14, 2008. The Chicago Sun Times and Chicago Tribune had already absolved me, several weeks before, by endorsing my candidacy for US President. On March 14 I did them a favor by getting them off the hook, not the other way around.

You should learn that what you think of me doesn't matter; it's what you think of yourself that matters. If you develop a positive attitude and don't get bogged down in fault-finding you can move mountains. That's what the Obama Narrative Doll is here to teach you. And just remember, I wuv you.

2008 Yellow Journalism Award goes to ABC News for smearing Angelina Jolie because she advised the US not to abandon Iraq

There have been many smear campaigns since the news media first got wind that the Bush administration was contemplating an invasion of Iraq. But I never thought I would see an American news organization stoop this low to go after an American who had gained worldwide respect for humanitarian work.

The ABC News smear is so cowardly and creepy it's as if they turned to their network's soap opera, Desperate Housewives, for tactical guidance on mounting this hit job:

"Is Angelina Driven to Be a Compulsive Mother? Need for Babies Can Signal Depression or Even Manipulation, Experts Say"

ABC was not content to insinuate that Jolie was mentally unstable; they also tossed in mention of every lurid detail from her past they could think of.

The report did mention in passing that Jolie "has been universally hailed for her humanitarian work" -- although it studiously avoided noting that she is a Goodwill Ambassador for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

ABC also neglected to mention that they knew Jolie had written an editorial for The Washington Post in which she advised against the US abandoning Iraq -- and that given her standing at the United Nations, her opinion would be seriously considered at the UN, and in Washington and other world capitals.

The ABC report also neglected to mention something else: They'd known since at least as early as the CNN February 7 interview with Jolie that her latest fact-finding trip to Iraq included talking with US officials about the need to provide enough security to help Iraq's 2.2 million internally displaced persons resettle in their homeland.

In other words, ABC had plenty of time to cook up a hit. Then they waited to see how far Jolie could take her plea; when they learned it was taken to one of the most influential newspapers in the world they threw shit at her, and without explaining to their audience why they did it.

I don't want to hear that ABC was only doing a tabloid piece, on the argument that the report came out the day before the Post published Jolie's editorial. ABC would have known from their contacts at the Post about the editorial.

And yes, I'm aware of Jake Tapper's blog at ABC News. It's virtually certain that Tapper, ABC News Senior National Correspondent, had nothing to do with the hit job. His February 29 comments about Jolie's editorial clearly indicate that he thought her op-ed deserved more attention from the news media than it had gotten. And he pointedly stated that he found the media silence about such an important story to be "weird."

The irony is that Tapper's own news organization had given the op-ed great attention but not in the way he intended.

That's my limit to mucking around in a sewer. Here's the complete transcript of the CNN interview with Jolie in Baghdad. (See above link for the CNN broadcast on the interview.) And here is Jolie's op-ed (see the WaPo page for linked references):

Staying to Help in Iraq
By Angelina Jolie
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The Washington Post

We have finally reached a point where humanitarian assistance, from us and others, can have an impact.

The request is familiar to American ears: "Bring them home."

But in Iraq, where I've just met with American and Iraqi leaders, the phrase carries a different meaning. It does not refer to the departure of U.S. troops, but to the return of the millions of innocent Iraqis who have been driven out of their homes and, in many cases, out of the country.

In the six months since my previous visit to Iraq with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this humanitarian crisis has not improved. However, during the last week, the United States, UNHCR and the Iraqi government have begun to work together in new and important ways.

We still don't know exactly how many Iraqis have fled their homes, where they've all gone, or how they're managing to survive. Here is what we do know: More than 2 million people are refugees inside their own country -- without homes, jobs and, to a terrible degree, without medicine, food or clean water. Ethnic cleansing and other acts of unspeakable violence have driven them into a vast and very dangerous no-man's land. Many of the survivors huddle in mosques, in abandoned buildings with no electricity, in tents or in one-room huts made of straw and mud. Fifty-eight percent of these internally displaced people are younger than 12 years old.

An additional 2.5 million Iraqis have sought refuge outside Iraq, mainly in Syria and Jordan. But those host countries have reached their limits. Overwhelmed by the refugees they already have, these countries have essentially closed their borders until the international community provides support.

I'm not a security expert, but it doesn't take one to see that Syria and Jordan are carrying an unsustainable burden. They have been excellent hosts, but we can't expect them to care for millions of poor Iraqis indefinitely and without assistance from the U.S. or others. One-sixth of Jordan's population today is Iraqi refugees. The large burden is already causing tension internally.

The Iraqi families I've met on my trips to the region are proud and resilient. They don't want anything from us other than the chance to return to their homes -- or, where those homes have been bombed to the ground or occupied by squatters, to build new ones and get back to their lives. One thing is certain: It will be quite a while before Iraq is ready to absorb more than 4 million refugees and displaced people. But it is not too early to start working on solutions. And last week, there were signs of progress.

In Baghdad, I spoke with Army Gen. David Petraeus about UNHCR's need for security information and protection for its staff as they re-enter Iraq, and I am pleased that he has offered that support. General Petraeus also told me he would support new efforts to address the humanitarian crisis "to the maximum extent possible" -- which leaves me hopeful that more progress can be made.

UNHCR is certainly committed to that. Last week while in Iraq, High Commissioner António Guterres pledged to increase UNHCR's presence there and to work closely with the Iraqi government, both in assessing the conditions required for return and in providing humanitarian relief.

During my trip I also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has announced the creation of a new committee to oversee issues related to internally displaced people, and a pledge of $40 million to support the effort.

My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis.

Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq -- and the potential consequences for our national security -- are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?

What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons. That is not a small amount of money -- but it is less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq. I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy.

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.

Angelina Jolie, an actor, is a UNHCR goodwill ambassador.

How you learned to stop worrying and love Obama

Hurry hurry hurry! Get your ticket to the Greatest Magic Show on Earth! See how the central issue in the Tony Rezko-Barack Obama relationship vanished right before your eyes! Watch as The Amazing Pundita and her scantily attired assistant Oprah reveal secrets of astounding misdirection and verbal sleight-of-hand! Get your ticket now -- yeah yeah kid here's a ticket for your puppy too. Hurry! Hurry!

[Oprah enters Stage Left and bows to the audience, then teeters in her five inch heels to a large box in the middle of the stage.]

Pundita: No dear this isn't the part where we saw you in half. Start the Power Point presentation, eh?

Vanishing Act
On March 6 the venerable British financial publication The Economist published an overview of the Rezko trial and its implications for Barack Obama. We'll begin by studying a few paragraphs from the report. Watch carefully don't blink. Watch carefully don't blink. Watch -- squeeze the little clicker, dear:

Mr Rezko is seen as one of Chicago's slimiest characters -- no small feat in a city where corruption rivals deep-dish pizza as the local speciality. Unfortunately for Mr Obama, he and this shady operator were once quite friendly.

The trial, as his staff rush to point out, has nothing to do with Mr Obama. Mr Rezko, a political fund-raiser, property developer and restaurateur (of fast food), was indicted in 2006.

We'll pause here to point out -- to point out [Oprah grabs a pointer] an astounding feat of magic.

The assurance by Obama's staff has been repeated not only by The Economist but by every major news outlet that discusses Obama's relationship with Rezko. Again and again, over a period of many months, you have been assured six ways from Sunday that although Rezko is on trial, Obama is not in any way involved.

Now my charming assistant will point to two words on the screen. Just as we rehearsed. Just as -- [Oprah points to the words "political" and "fund-raiser" in The Economist text.]

Thank you. Now let us repeat the sentence but with emphasis on those two words:

Mr Rezko, a political fund-raiser ... was indicted in 2006.

Tony Rezko has pleaded not guilty to all charges. However, it's vital to understand that the trial does not only relate to charges of extortion, money laundering, fraud, and aiding and abetting bribery. It also relates to allegations about how Rezko used the extorted money.

A large part of the money that Mr Rezko controlled was used to finance election campaigns for a host of politicians in Illinois going back several years, and ranging from the lowest positions right up to the office of governor.

From this you can see it's somewhat misleading to allege that Rezko is a crook; he is a political fundraiser who used crooked means to finance political campaigns. He conducted this operation methodically, consistently, over a period years.

This involved considerable risk on Rezko's part -- and the more his modus operandi became known, the more people he pulled into his network, the riskier the enterprise.

So unless Mr Rezko is barking mad we can rule out that his method of fundraising was in the altruistic spirit of fostering the democratic process. He did not risk many years in prison to be helpful; he risked his freedom to buy up politicians.

From that viewpoint it's splitting a hair to assert that Barack Obama is not in any way involved in Rezko's trial. True, Mr Obama has not been indicted on any charge but every politician in the state of Illinois touched by Rezko's money is involved.

Indeed, The Economist article eventually mentions:

Mr Obama's name may come up in the trial, but only peripherally: Mr Rezko told two associates to give money to his 2004 Senate campaign.

This statement is a splendid example of verbal sleight-of-hand. Rezko was a major campaign contributor to Obama, told several people to donate to his Senate campaign, and served on his finance committee when Obama ran for the US Senate.

However, we'll save discussion of lessor feats of magic for Act II. For now, understand that everyone of reasonably sound mind running for political office in Illinois knew that when Tony Rezko offered to help them get elected, he expected help in return.

Even in the unlikely event that Barack Obama was so dense that he did not immediately comprehend the Rezko Way, you may trust that repeated fundraising help from Tony Rezko was accompanied by very clear explanations.

Yet by constant repetition of the statement that Barack Obama is not involved the trial of Tony Rezko, the whole point of the Obama-Rezko relationship was made to vanish -- was made to -- was made -- [Oprah throws gold glitter] to vanish into thin air, right in front of your eyes.

Now I, The Amazing Pundita, with the help of my irreplaceable assistant, will reveal the secret to this astounding feat of magic.

[Oprah plunks a dunce cap on her head and grins impishly at the audience.]

You are the secret, as the audience's willingness to suspend disbelief is the secret to all magic tricks.

[Pundita and Oprah join hands and bow deeply to the audience, then vanish in a puff of smoke.]

CURTAIN

This post is also published at Rezko Watch.

All About Barack

Readers who've closely followed the Rezko-Obama issue are probably familiar with the reports I feature in this post. What I've done is juxtapose quotes from the reports with statements made by Barack Obama or in support of him.

This approach omits discussion of much important data in the reports and reorganizes parts of Lin Farley's enormously informative report, Follow the Money.

My aim is to convey a pattern of Barack Obama's behavior as a politician; I think this is best done by pointing up the vast difference between his statements and facts on the ground. I've only used a few examples but I stress that additional examples abound.

I have a few comments to add at the end but now it's time to roll the camera:

A young voter sits typing at the computer, earnestly explaining why he loves Barack Obama:

... Tell them about all the amazing things Senator Obama has been able to do during this camaign. ... Tell them so that they gain the courage once again to report above the fray and above the politics as usual so that America can have a discussion about the future and so that America can see what Barack is really about. ...
-- Active Honesty blog at Barack campaign website

"The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

"This was for the 13th district in Chicago, a Democratic stronghold; the real election is the Democratic primary, with the actual general election being a coronation.

So by sending his lawyers to force all the other candidates off the primary ballot, Obama cleared the decks for an essentially unopposed election.

"One of the lesser candidates, Gha-is Askia, summed up Obama perfectly:

'Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run Scot-free? Why not let the people decide?'
-- From Chicago Rules by Dafydd

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama brought his message to San Antonio ... He chose to highlight his proposals to help those hurt by the subprime mortgage crisis. ... He said he wants to penalize unscrupulous lenders and return the ill-gotten monies to homeowners so they can stay in their homes.

"Seven of the [Obama] campaign’s top 14 donors are officers and employees of the companies that either originated or bundled fraudulent mortgages.

"These seven Wall Street firms are in the order of money given: Goldman Sachs, UBS, AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. ...

"Penny Pritzker, finance chairwoman for the Obama campaign, according to Earl Offari Hutchinson, headed up the borderline shady and failed Superior Bank. It collapsed in 2002. The bank’s ... role in fueling the sub-prime crisis [is] well known and documented. It engaged in deceptive and faulty lending, questionable accounting practices, and charged hidden fees. ... It made thousands of dubious loans to mostly poor, strapped homeowners. A disproportionate number of them were minority. ...

"According to the Woodstock Institute, a Chicago non-profit that studies housing issues, the subprime fall-out was far higher in the predominantly black and Latino neighborhoods of South and Southwest Chicago.

"The predictable happened when many of those lost their homes. When the bank collapsed Pritzker and bank officials skipped away with their profits and reputations intact. ..." [1]
-- From Follow the Money

I’m here because somebody marched. I’m here because you all sacrificed for me. I stand on the shoulders of giants.
-- Barack Obama, 2007 Selma Voting Rights March Commemoration

There is no better advocate for African Americans than Barack Obama. ... Barack has spent his entire career fighting for justice ... As President, you can trust that he will hear your voice, understand your concerns, and act on your priorities.
-- African Americans for Obama blog at Obama campaign website

"[Tony] Rezko, after all, built part of his fortune by exploiting the black community that Obama had served in the state Senate, and by milking government programs meant to benefit black-owned businesses.

"But Obama took Rezko’s money even after the businessman was sued by the city of Chicago for failing to heat his low-income apartments, and even after Rezko was caught using a black business partner to obtain a minority set-aside for a fast-food franchise at O’Hare Airport."
-- Edward McClelland,Chicago journalist

I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists -- and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.
-- Barack Obama, Des Moines, IA, November 10, 2007

"According to the Center For Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, non-profit research group based in Washington, D.C. that tracks money in politics, and its effect on elections and public policy, the 20 top contributors to the Barack Obama campaign are Wall Street financial companies, their registered lobbyists, and go-to law firms. ... There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street.

"There are five 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 close to 3 million ($2,872,128). ...

"Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska said Obama’s much repeated disavowal of lobbyist contributions is “less than pure” because he has wealthy executives who employ lobbyists raising money for him.

"Gravel singled out Obama fundraiser, Robert Wolf, America’s chairman for Swiss-based UBS Investment Bank, a “foreign owned bank” he said with “lobbyists in Washington.” At that point employees of UBS had given at least $142,000. ...

"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. Bob Bauer, counsel to the Obama campaign, is an attorney with Perkins Coie, that law firm is also a registered lobbyist. ...
-- From Follow the Money

In the first two weeks of the 110th Congress, Senator Obama helped lead the Senate to pass the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act, a comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform bill, by a 96-2 vote. ... Most importantly, the final reform bill contained a provision pushed by Senator Obama to require the disclosure of contributions that registered lobbyists “bundle” – that is, collect or arrange – for candidates, leadership PACs, and party committees.
-- From Barack Obama's Senate website

"Major fundraisers, often called ‘bundlers’, are playing a gigantic role in financing the [Obama] campaign.

"In the last half of 2007, Obama raised $58 million, of that amount at least $13 million came from ‘bundlers’ and Chicago Tribune Staff reporters Mike Dorning and John McCormick wrote, “the total is probably much higher.” ...
-- Follow the Money

Obama's years as an anti-poverty organizer give him insights into one of our greatest challenges: how to end cycles of poverty.
-- Nicholas D. Kristof, columnist for The New York Times

We need to mobilize and support the election of Barack Obama not only because he is progressive and fully qualified to be president, but also because only his campaign can force all Americans to overcome the centuries-old silences about race that still create a deep chasm across this nation’s democratic life. In the end, we must force our fellow citizens who happen to be white, to come to terms with their own whiteness, their guilt and fears about America’s terrible racial past.
-- Dr. Manning Marable, writing for The Black Commentator

"On February 10, 2005, Obama voted in favor of the passage of the misnamed Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 which seriously hampers the rights of ordinary citizens to challenge corporations.

"Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry Leah, Reid and 16 other democrats voted against it. So did 14 state attorneys general, including Lisa Madigan of Obama’s home state of Illinois. She called it a “corporate giveaway.”

"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 Fund) and Alliance for Justice. They wrote:

'Under the Act citizens are denied the right to use their own state courts to bring class actions against corporations that violate 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'

"The bill which will seriously impair labor, consumer and civil rights involved five years of pressure from 100 corporations, 475 lobbyists, and tens of millions of corporate dollars to buy influence. It also involved 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, according to Public Citizen which also said in a 2003 report that Mayer-Brown partners and employees gave close to $100,000 [$92,817] to the Obama campaign by December 31, 2007.

"Mayer-Brown, hired by the US Chamber of Commerce, spent $16 million in 2003 lobbying the government on class action reform.

"According to a comprehensive report form the nonprofit group, United for A Fair Economy,

"But it appears that the identity politics carefully nurtured and enforced by the Obama campaign [see John Lewis statement on the Obama campaign pressure to switch his super-delegate vote from Hillary] has successfully concealed from the African American community, as well as most Americans, that Barack Obama supported this bill–while his opponent Hillary Clinton did not. In other words he protected those companies, according to federal data, which best exploited the African American community.

"People of color are three times more likely to have subprime loans. High-cost loans account for 55 percent of loans to blacks, but only 17 percent of loans to whites. If there had been equitable distribution of subprime loans, losses for white people would be 44.5 percent higher and losses for people of color would be about 24 percent lower. This is evidence of systemic prejudice and institutional racism."
-- From Follow the Money

We've made our best effort to run the most ethical campaign possible in all ways and release donations when appropriate.
-- Barack Obama's press secretary, Bill Burton, June 2007

"During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found. [...]"
-- Chicago Sun Times

Here I end because the above article takes us into the Byzantine Rezko-Obama fundraising relationship. For those who are daunted by the complexities I think the best place to start is where it all began for the American public, which was during the debate in which Hillary Clinton accused Obama of working for a slumlord:

A website called MYDD presents a coherent facts check on the accusation and related issues. Once you have the basics down you'll be in a better position to wend your way through the rest of the Rezko-Obama maze, which is still adding on twists and turns.

The pattern that emerges from the accounts reminds me of Eve Harrington and her climb to stardom in All About Eve.

Indeed a viewing of Joe Mankiewicz's classic tale of ambition, manipulation and betrayal might be the easiest way to understand Obama's relationship with a Chicago circle that includes the likes of Penny Pritzker and Tony Rezko.

One might argue that Barack Obama simply fitted himself into the corrupt milieu; that he went along and got along in order to survive Chicago politics. If that's true, what is there about his history to suggest he'll stand up to business as usual in Washington, once he arrives in the White House?

1) If you're interested in learning more about Superior's predatory practices you can start with Obama's Sub-Prime Conflict by Dennis Bernstein
February 28, 2008

I do not know, and I am not sure I want to know, why the Wikipedia article on Penny Pritzker has nothing to say about her involvement with the Superior Bank scandal. For that matter, there is not a Wikipedia article on the scandal, which is to the mortgage business what Enron was to stock manipulation and accounting fraud.

As to Ms Pritzker's relationship with Barack Obama, the article only mentions that she's the national finance chairwoman of his presidential campaign. I wouldn't expect the article to mention Pritzker's long friendship with Obama, but it is surprising that it doesn't mention that Pritzker was on the finance committee for Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign.

Meow meow Mark Steyn

Do not bother reading this entry unless you're very familiar with the Section 13 War or you need a break from plowing through stuff like the Naxalite rebellion -- or terrorist movement, depending on which 1,452 page report with 46 pages of footnotes one studies.

Johann's Lament

Drat that Mark Steyn, whose wit is so much finer than mine!
I grunt and I strain for hours on end to concoct a bon mot
And he just flings them out
Why do I appear catty when I criticize
While he gets fêted for brilliance?
Drat that Mark Steyn, whose brain works so much faster than mine!
O hell, I think I will take up writing murder mysteries
Then no one will ask whether I'm making up conversations
And I can write gruesome endings for everyone I hate.

With that off my chest I return refreshed and restored to pondering such vexing questions as:

So on the basis of what is Rahul Gandhi claiming to be a “soldier for adivasis” when there is nothing in his public record to suggest the same?

Plucky activists score a small but telling victory in honor of International Woman's Day

I'm trying to imagine how they did it without getting caught. But sometime in the dead of night on March 6, in cities in Finland, Germany and Russia, members of the understandably anonymous Anonymous Group of Democratic and Free Thinking managed to drape a total of eight public female statues with a burqa or hijab.

Instead of bounding away with the ladder after each escapade they stuck around long enough to affix an arm band and signboard to the statue.

The armband reads "Gender Equality!"

The signboard carries two quotes:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." -- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations, Art. 1

"To those (women) on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them." -- Quran, Sura 4,34

More news to celebrate on International Women's Day comes from the journalism profession. In developing countries around the world, more and more females are learning to use the news media to publicly discuss sensitive or 'taboo' subjects such as rape and forced marriage.

Internews reports on women who are pushing the male-dominated news media in their countries to report more on female issues and gender equality.

And the World Opinion polling organization has released encouraging data on women's rights. Before you smirk at some fairy tale answers given to pollsters in countries such as Iran, keep in mind that women's rights around the world have come a very long way from a century ago. There's a long way to go but the poll underscores the progress and indicates that a tipping point has been reached.

The idea that women do not deserve the same rights as males has been "denormalized," to borrow Ezra Levant's interpretation of the term, and this has happened worldwide. Today, governments that suppress women's rights have to engage in fancy footwork to rationalize gender inequality, and they're aware that their excuses ring hollow on the world stage. There is now widespread consensus in the majority of nations that it's important for "women to have full equality of rights," as the World Opinion organization puts it.

However, the fight is not just to gain ground but also to keep it. The Anonymous Group of Democratic and Free Thinking points out on their website that democracy is not a God-given right. The same holds true for laws that protect women from discrimination. In many countries, including Western liberal democracies, Muslim women are being been coerced and intimidated to give up hard won rights.

All praise for the statue drapers! Yet if Western governments don't wake up, more of their citizens will have to creep around under cover of darkness if they want to make a public stand for freedom:

For Islamists, the imperative to veil women justifies almost any means. Sometimes they try to buy off resistance. Some French Muslim families, for instance, are paid 500 euros (around $600) per quarter by extremist Muslim organizations just to have their daughters wear the hijab.

This has also happened in the United States. Indeed, the famous and brave Syrian-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan recently told the Jerusalem Post that after she moved to the United States in 1991, Saudis offered her $1,500 a month to cover her head and attend a mosque.

But what Islamists use most is intimidation. A survey conducted in France in May 2003 found that 77 percent of girls wearing the hijab said they did so because of physical threats from Islamist groups.

A series in the newspaper Libération in 2003 documented how Muslim women and girls in France who refuse to wear the hijab are insulted, rejected, and often physically threatened by Muslim males.

One of the teenage girls interviewed said, "Every day, bearded men come to me and advise me strongly on wearing the veil. It is a war. For now, there are no dead, but there are looks and words that do kill."

Muslim women who try to rebel are considered "whores" and treated as outcasts. Some of them want to move to areas "with no Muslims" to escape. However, that might not be a solution, as Islamists are at work all over France.

The Communist newspaper L'Humanité in 2003 interviewed two Catholic-born French women who said they had converted to Islam and started wearing the niqab after systematic indoctrination by the Muslim Brotherhood.

In light of this, wearing the hijab may or may not be a manifestation of the free exercise of religion. For any individual, it may reflect the very opposite -- religious coercion.

In fact, millions of women are forced to wear the veil for fear of physical retribution. And the fear is well founded. According to Cheryl Benard of RAND, every year hundreds of women in Pakistan and Afghanistan alone are killed, have acid thrown in their faces, or are otherwise maimed by male fanatics.

Given the Islamists' ferocious determination on this point, it is worth asking: Why exactly is covering the female so important to them? The obvious answer is that it is a means of social control. Not coincidentally, it is one of the only issues on which Sunni and Shia extremists agree. It's not by chance that use of the hijab really took off after Iran's Islamic regime came to power in 1979. Some Shiite militias in Iraq have actually started forcing women -- Muslim or not -- to wear the veil or face the consequences. [...]

Professor Iqbal Al-Gharbi, from the famous Islamic Zaytouna University in Tunis, explained: "The veil is just the tip of the iceberg. Behind the veil, there is the regressive interpretation of the sharia [Koranic law]. There are the three essential inequalities which define this interpretation: inequality between man and woman, between Muslim and non-Muslim, between free man and slave."(1)

1) The Veil Controversy: Islamism and liberalism face off by Olivier Guitta;
12/04/2006; Weekly Standard.

A career change in the stars for Barack Obama?

As of this writing the (London) Times Online has not published comments I submitted in response to their Q&A: Barack Obama and Tony Rezko

I am irritated by the snub firstly because it's very rare for me to trouble with writing for an online publication other than my own. Secondly, I thought the Times would appreciate my pointing out that their account skipped crucial history. So this post presents the full text of my response, which I had to abbreviate for entry to the Times because of the space limit they impose on comments.

Here are the passages, posted under the heading How does [Rezko] know Barack Obama? that prompted my response:

Mr Rezko approached Mr Obama in 1990 after reading that he had become the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. Mr Rezko and two real estate partners offered Mr Obama a job building inner-city homes in Chicago. Mr Obama declined, but remained friendly with Mr Rezko, who became one of his earliest and biggest fundraisers.

Mr Obama says that he met Mr Rezko “once or twice a year” for lunch and the Rezkos and Obamas have dined together as couples perhaps “two to four times” since they have known each other. As a lawyer, Mr Obama did six hours’ work for partners of Mr Rezko's company in state-subsidised apartment rehabilitation projects.

Here is my response:

Your article neglects to mention that after declining Mr Rezko's offer to build inner-city homes Mr Obama accepted employment at a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, which represented a series of Mr Rezko's partners in a series of transactions to build and rehabilitate low-income housing. The firm handled all the legal paperwork for the transactions, which involved government contracts and grants. The transactions are now the subject of federal criminal indictment in Chicago.

The law firm helped a Rezko company (Rezmar) obtain more than $43 million in government funding to rehabilitate 15 of their 30 apartment buildings for the poor. The "rehabilitation" left the squalid buildings without water and heat (Chicago is bitterly cold in winter).

Several of those buildings are located in Mr Obama's State Senate district.

[This ends my entry to the Times comment section. The data I provide above is taken almost verbatim from Nobody's hands are perfectly clean in politics.]

Mr Obama denies everything -- meaning that whatever question he allows the press to put to him about his involvement in the Rezko affair he answers in such way to excuse himself of wrongdoing.

However, investigative reporters at Chicago newspapers have lists of questions they have long tried to put directly to Mr Obama about his part in Mr Rezko's complex web of business dealings and Mr Rezko's complex involvement in Mr Obama's affairs.

Mr Obama has shown great skill at avoiding troubling questions from pesky 'hometown' reporters. Yesterday, the Chicago Sun-Times finally went so far as to publish their phone number with the plea that Obama phone home.

I believe that higher math is required to fully grasp the many connections in the Rezko-Obama affair and how they intersect. However, even a rough understanding of the way things work in Mr Obama's Senate district makes it strikingly evident that his run for the US presidency represents a masterful Deception & Denial campaign. When you combine this particular genius with a gift for gab and finely tuned ear for nuance it's obvious Mr Obama missed his calling.

Clearly, Barack Obama was born to be US Ambassador to China.

LANDMARK LEGAL VICTORY: Canadian Human Rights Commission's spying operations to be exposed!

May 2007
As part of a Section 13 hearing involving Marc Lemire, his attorney Barbara Kulaszka asked Dean Steacy (senior investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission) about a computer screen name account called “Jadewarr." Steacy created the account on the website StormFront in the attempt to set up and possibly entrap Marc Lemire. To block all futher questions to Steacy about the Jadewarr account, the CHRC claimed immunity for national security reasons. There followed an epic legal battle.

March 3, 2008

OTTAWA - Shockwaves are rattling through the befuddled Section 13 pre-crime enforcers at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as a monumental decision was handed down by CHR Tribunal Vice-Chairman Athanasios Hadjis. The ruling forces CHRC senior investigator and internet spy, Dean Steacy, to return to the witness stand to answer questions under oath on his internet spying operations against Marc Lemire [owner of FreedomSite] and ... FreeDominion website. [...]

The triumphant email from Marc Lemire arrived at 2:10 AM this morning. For a moment I stared blankly at the news, my mind unable to take in the enormity of the victory.

Then I jumped to my feet and cried, "Three Cheers for Barbara Kulaszka! For Marc! For Canada's FreeSpeechers!"

I am so happy that all I can add to my cheers is to urge you to click on this link, which summarizes the battle that resulted in the CHRT ruling. The battle between the CHRC and Lemire & Kulaszka, even in abbeviated telling, is so astounding it enters the hall of Legend.

On second thought I could also quote from an essay Binky wrote yesterday:

This is the dirty barn-work of democracy, standing for the foundations of our civilization, of bearing witness with whatever strength and courage and witness we may have, side-by-side with whatever unlikely band of brothers and sisters that the circumstances bring together.

John Batchelor has questions for Barack Obama about Aiham Alsammarae

After a nod to a catchy opening --

A mysterious fugitive from Iraqi justice named Aiham Alsammarae, who is also a Chicago resident, is the focus of a politically fraught episode in the association between accused political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who goes on federal trial today in Chicago for graft, and Senator Barack Obama, the most spectacular Illinois presidential candidate in half a century.

John Batchelor settles down to writing what seems more an intelligence brief than a news report. The dry, precise wording makes the revelations all the more shocking.

Aaron Klein, Jerusalem bureau chief for World Net Daily and the author of Schmoozing with Terrorists, contributed to the brief.

For background on the Iraq angle see the huge article at Rezko Watch, which:

...originated with information gathered by Chicago blogger Bill Baar and has been expanded and updated a number of times in order to reconcile various accounts of events.

Frankly, the echoes and correspondences in the web are getting so complicated I'm glad to see that Rezko Watch has posted a Follow the Money Rezko-Obama Muckety Map.

This brings up a valid question: whether Mr Rezko's web is so complex that detailing it risks losing the general public. Best I can answer is that when you consider that a US presidential candidate is enmeshed in the web, the mainstream media had better find a way to get across the story.

Here we come to a snag. I've been told many times that no matter much people hate negative campaigning, it works. I'd say what works even better is the atavistic Three Times Rule: If you screw around with people three times, the fourth time they won't believe you even if you're telling them God's Truth. It's the Cry Wolf reaction. Once that reaction sets in, you're up the creek if you sound a genuine alarm.

Now to apply this observation. Lies and untrue innuendo have been spread about Barack Obama. Let's start counting. There was Barack Obama's attendance at a madrassa. There was Obama's refusal to put his hand on his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance. And there is Obama's secret devotion to Islam.

So good luck when you shake people by the shoulders and yell, "Forget all that stuff! He's old fashioned political-machine slime, only he's involved with the kind of crooks who took a hatchet to Allawi in London!"

Somewhere, I hear laughter.

I wouldn't laugh too long. Barack Obama is himself approaching the Three Times limit in his presidential campaign, if he hasn't already surpassed it.

Then what might happen? It could come down to millions of Democrats having to choose between a pit of snakes and a pit of spiders -- the Democratic leadship having eased out perfectly reasonable and well-vetted candidates early on. So one scenario is the Democratic National Convention being unofficially named Howard Dean's Revenge.

From the frying pan into the fire

Readers who visit here regularly know that since early January I've been fighting alongside Canadians who are battling to restore freedom of speech in their country. I've paid scant attention to US politics during that time.

During the past week I was pelted with warnings from readers and colleagues that I needed to rip my attention away from Canada (and Britain) long enough to focus on the storm of controversy building around Barack Obama and certain of his associates.

Given the breadth and complexity of Canada's Section 13 issue, I was hoping for a little respite from complexity when I turned to study the Obama affair, but no such luck. I am still playing catch-up but this weekend I dashed off two posts on the affair.

Also, this morning I posted on some great news with regard the Section 13 complaints against Maclean's magazine.

To return to the Obama affair, today the jury selection begins in the Rezko case. Below is a 'find' I made last night and my hasty note to a colleague about it.
Best regards to all,
Pundita

Nobody's hands are perfectly clean in politics

Larry Johnson linked to this some days ago but I just found. Data rich, highly informed analysis of Obama-Rezko matter by a "former federal prosecutor who also served at other levels of government, both in civil and criminal law, including as Counsel to an Inspector General. These days, I'm a soccer mom and a partner in a small law practice with a buddy of mine from the US Attorney's Office."

The analysis gives attention to early relationship of Obama-Rezko and clearly explains why questions about it are vitally important.

Section 13: The devil is in the details, and did the Sock Puppets talk themselves over the cliff?

On Saturday Mark Steyn reported that the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) declined to hear Mohamed Elmasry's complaint against Maclean's "on the grounds that they deal in denials of service on the basis of race, creed, etc., and a magazine is not a 'service.' "

He also made observations that I don't understand. He wrote that now that the Ontario complaint has been declined:

Just for the record, this now means the Sock Puppet Three have nothing to do with either of the [two Section 13] cases that are going forward. They are no longer even potential complainants.

For readers still getting their bearings in the story, the "Sock Puppet Three" is Steyn's way of referring to three of the four law students who demanded that Maclean's publish their rebuttal to an article by Steyn. For months the four co-authored op-eds to defend their position but recently one of them seemingly dropped out of the mix.

In all the op-eds the Sock Puppets stated that they were the complainants in the Section 13 filings against Maclean's et al., whereas the complainant is actually Elmasry. (That's why Steyn dubbed the students Elmasry's sock puppets.)

I don't understand why Steyn assumes that with the Ontario complaint gone, this means the students will also be gone.

Maybe Steyn's attorney knows something I don't. But Elmasry's complaint with both the BC and federal commission makes an issue of his version of the treatment that the students received from Maclean's when they demanded the magazine publish their rebuttal to Steyn's article.

So I'd assume that Elmasry would still call those students as witnesses in both hearings -- unless, the BC tribunal and the CHRC threw out that issue. Or unless Elmasry's lawyer decided that the Sock Puppets' testimony would be a liability.

As to why they might be a liability: there are two very different versions of what was said in the Maclean's office. First there is the students' version, which Elmasry quotes in his complaints. Second, the version from the editors who met with the students.

The editors' version includes the allegation that the students demanded money from the magazine. Although I don't know exactly what was said, in the context of the confrontation the alleged demand sounds like an extortion attempt.

Another possible liability is that since December 2007, the Sock Puppets have been announcing all over Canada that "they" filed the Section 13 complaints because they "wanted" to have equal space to rebut Steyn's article and Maclean's wouldn't give it to them. But that reason is a clear manipulation ("misinterpretation," if you want to be polite) of the wording and meaning of the Section 13 code.

That might be why Steyn chortled bye-bye to the students. The Sock Puppets might have talked themselves over the cliff.

I guess we'll have to wait and see, to learn whether we've heard the last from the Sock Puppets. For now, I am very happy that the Ontario complaint is kaput.

The good news brought forth a mixed reaction from StatGuy, who's one of the Canadian bloggers fighting for freedom of speech in their nation. He titled his post Maclean's gets off on a technicality and wrote:

This is good news indeed but, at the same time, a little disconcerting. In a classic display of inside-the-box bureaucratic thinking, OHRC turned down the case only because it didn't fit into their neat little definitions.

Actually, the OHRC did not dismiss the complaint on a technicality. This can be seen if you study the questions on the complaint form that Elmasry filled out, and his answers.

Yet there is a technicality in play; once you note it you can also spot the devil in the details. So let's embark again on a journey through the maze:

A post by Mark Steyn provides PDF links to all three complaints against Maclean's et al. Go there now, if you haven't yet done so, and study the OHRC complaint.

What jumps out, when you study the complaint form, is that Elmasry ignored the OHRC criteria for filing a discrimination complaint. And he supplied his own meaning for "service" and service denied.

So it was a specious complaint and on that important point, which directly relates to upholding Ontario's discrimination laws, the HRC rejected the complaint.

Why then, if the services denied complaint was specious at first glance to the commission, did the OHRC sit on the complaint for several months? Why didn't they immediately return the form and tell Elmasry that it was improperly filled out?

It's possible the reason was 'political,' as some have speculated. Yet there's a practical reason that could explain the long delay in the commission's decision:

Study Elmasry's language in the OHRC complaint. Readers who are familiar with Section 13 will note that he's mixing up a Section 13 "hate message" complaint with a complaint about an act of discrimination involving a denied service. Hate message; service denied: two different things.

And he doesn't mention on the Ontario complaint form that he has filed a Section 13 complaint with the federal HRC (Canadian Human Rights Commission), which has a mandate to review such complaints.

If I recall correctly, the PDF of the OHRC complaint form does not show a date for when it was filed or received at RCI's legal department (which handles the complaints against Maclean's et al.). And if memory serves, the Section 13 complaint was received at the CHRC (federal commission) or sent to RCI on or around September 18, 2007.

If Elmasry had not yet filed with the CHRC, or if the Onatario commission was unaware of such a filing, the OHRC might have had to consider whether to accept the 'hate message' part of Elmasry's complaint, even though the "service denied" part was specious.

In any event, within the past couple months the wide publicity given the Maclean's affair surely brought it to the attention of the OHRC that Elmasry filed a Section 13 with the federal commission, and that the complaint would be heard by the tribunal connected with the CHRC. That might explain why the Ontario commission could finally reject Elmasry's complaint.

If you go next to the PDF of the British Columbia complaint form, you'll see that Elmasry did the same as with the Ontario complaint. He ignored the criteria stated on the form for filing a complaint; he filed partly on the basis of services denied, and supplied his own meaning for services denied. And he included what is clearly a Section 13 complaint.

If I recall the BC form is dated April 20, 2007. Remember that the federal complaint was filed months later, in September. So, as with the Ontario commission, the BC human rights tribunal was faced with a mixed complaint (service denied + hate message) and at that time, Elmasry had definitely not filed a Section 13 with the CHRC.

Here one might ask why the BC human rights tribunal didn't simply return the form, tell Elmasry that it was filled out improperly, and suggest he file a Section 13 with the federal commission regarding his complaint about hate speech.

It's possible that BC discrimination law gives a wider interpretation to "services" than Ontario. I haven't studied either set of laws. However, the wording on the BC complaint form makes it clear what is meant by "services" and by service denied. And this meaning comports with the meaning of "services" shown on the Ontario complaint form.

This opens up a line of questions. If BC and Ontario have virtually the same criteria for a service and a service denied, why would the BC tribunal go ahead with a hearing, once they learned that Elmasry had filed a Section 13 with the federal HRC? Why wouldn't they reject the "service denied" claim, as Ontario did, and tell Elmasry that he could seek relief from the federal commission for the hate message complaint?

It's possible the BC tribunal set the hearing date (June 3) before they were aware that Elmasry filed the Section 13 with the CHRC. But I find it likely that at this point they're aware of Elmasry's Section 13 and that it's been accepted by the CHRC for a tribunal hearing.

Of course one doesn't need to take a hate message complaint to the federal commission; a provincial commission/tribunal will hear it. Yet it does seem redundant if the same complaint can be heard by two different bodies -- not to mention that this deprives the respondent of the constitutional right to be protected from double jeopardy.

In theory at least, if both bodies find in the complainant's favor they can impose different penalties on the same respondent for the same complaint.

But now return to the PDF documents. Note the respondents named on the CHRC complaint form and the British Columbia Tribunal complaint form. The respondents are different, aren't they?

From memory, the respondents on the BC form are Ken MacQueen, the British Columbia editor for Maclean's; and Maclean's magazine.

The respondents on the federal form are two other Maclean's editors, what may be an employee of Rogers Communications, and Rogers Communications. Maclean's magazine is not named as a respondent. Now why is that?

Because Elmasry is going after Maclean's on the Internet in the federal filing, and going after the hard copy of the magazine in the BC provincial filing.

So on a technicality, the federal and BC provincial filings are not redundant.

There's the devil in the details. So let's have no more wondering about whether Elmasry and his attorney understand what they're doing.

Why did Elmasry pick British Columbia? And why not file a complaint in all the Canadian provinces, given that Maclean's is a nationally distributed magazine? I don't know -- I don't even know whether Maclean's has an editor for every province.

I'll take a shot in the dark regarding the second question. Mark Steyn reported several weeks ago that Naiyer Habib is a co-complainant with Elmasry in the BC complaint. If you study the PDF of the complaint, as of April 2007 Elmasry is shown as the sole complainant. That suggests Habib was added at some point after the original filing.

Why was Habib added? Possibly because he's not controversial, as is Elmasry. However, Elmasry is not a BC resident; I don't know about Habib but if he is a resident, it's likely that the BC tribunal told Elmasry that they couldn't hear the complaint unless he found a resident of BC to act as co-complainant.

So it's possible that Elmasry didn't file in every province simply because he couldn't find a resident in every province to be a co-complainant with him.

Barack (I'm not a crook) Obama, Nadhmi (I'm not a crook) Auchi, Tony (I'm not a crook) Rezko, and the Democrat (We're not idiots) leadership

D-d-doctor Dean p-p-please don't p-p-point that gun at me. I'm just a strategist. We d-d-did focus groups showing white women are crazy about him. W-we can blame it on them. W-what about Oprah? She lives in Chicago, she should have read Chicago newspapers. Hillary should have spoken up sooner, n-not just when she was losing. Women, Doctor Dean! We can blame it on women!

ABC News Blotter - With the corruption trial of one of Sen. Barack Obama's longtime friends and supporters set to begin Monday in Chicago, Ill., reform watchdogs say it will reveal the "cesspool" of Illinois politics in which Obama came of age and has said little about in his campaign for president.

"We have a sick political culture," said Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, "and that's the environment that Barack Obama came from."

Stewart says he does not understand why Obama has lectured others about corruption in Washington and Kenya but "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state, including at this point, mostly Democratic politicians."

There was no immediate comment from the Obama campaign.

The trial Monday involves federal charges of bribery and extortion against Tony Rezko, a real estate developer who became known in Illinois politics as a behind-the-scenes operator and fixer. While Obama is not considered a target of the Rezko investigation, Stewart says it will shed light on a man who was pivotal to Obama's political career.

"This wasn't just some guy who wrote a check once for Barack Obama, it's someone who was an early supporter and had a personal relationship with Sen. Obama for quite some time," Stewart said. Indeed, even after he was elected to the United States Senate, Obama involved Rezko in a land deal that enabled the senator to buy his current home on Chicago's South Side. Obama has since called his decision to involve Rezko "a bone-headed mistake."

"Tony Rezko is all that is wrong with the old kind of politics or any kind of politics," said the Better Government Association's Stewart. The Rezko trial will focus on Rezko's alleged role in steering Illinois state contracts in exchange for kickbacks and political contributions to Rezko friends. The most damning examples cited by prosecutors involve Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, but several of the contributions were directed to Obama's 2004 Senate campaign. [...]

When the Clintons were in the White House you couldn't open a file drawer in Washington, DC without a Russian crook popping out. Hi. Today ve selling off Russian aluminum industry. Vant to make ten million cheap easy?

You would think that the Democrat Party leaders had learned their lesson with Marc Rich. So what possessed the party bosses to push for Barack Obama? Did they hope that Auchi's attorneys could terrorize the American news media into such silence that the lid would stay on, at least until Obama got into the White House?

Okay, but didn't they look at a calendar and see that Tony Rezko's indictment was on the horizon? Didn't they know that the trial was going to make it impossible to hide from the rest of the country the cesspool of corruption that is Illinois politics?

The crazy part is that so many Americans are mad at the GOP that Donald Duck could have been elected president if he'd run on the Democrat ticket. His entire platform could have consisted of "Quack; quack quack!" and he would have won by a landslide.

Any old Democrat would have done. But no -- Howard Dean would not rest until he found the one politician in the Democrat party who made a point of lecturing Washington about the evils of corruption while he himself was up to his eyeballs in it.

And not just homegrown corruption. We're talking Syrian crooks, Iraqi crooks -- and not just any old Iraqi crooks. We're talking Saddam's old crew.

Don't tell me that Obama is so slick he can handle it. What's he going to do? Speed-dial Rezko and say thanks for getting me this far but you don't own me anymore, now I want to be president.

Hello, Rafik Hariri had more security than a US president. They had to scrape pieces of him off the street after the bomb went off.

So what century is Ted Kennedy living in? What planet does Howard Dean inhabit? Let me explain this planet, in this century:

Feb 15, 2008 - Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.

Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.

Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.

He was accused in yesterday's high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family. [...]

Yes, that would be the same Prince Bandar who was the toast of Washington for years and the dear friend of the GOP and the Democrats. But all those happy Washington parties were in another time, another century.

Maybe the worst part is the trust that so many young Americans placed in Obama. I think of the donations from Americans who couldn't afford to give as much as they did but who turned out their pockets in the hope that Obama would cleanse Washington of fat cats.

One may call such Americans naive but it's the responsibility of the Democrat Party leadership to insure that their candidates are well vetted before they run for the highest office in the land.

As for shifting the blame to The New York Times -- they're waiting for Rachel's Law to kick in, so Auchi's lawyers can't stick them with a $100 billion defamation suit from London if the paper so much as spells his name wrong.

Yes, the national US mainstream media can be faulted for playing ostrich but where is it written that it's their job to vet political candidates?

I see that ABC News is scrambling now that it's dawned on George Soros that the scandal can finish the Democrat Party. But it's a little late in the day to come alive, isn't it?

Byron York reports that during this morning's ABC This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Howard Wolfson called on the Obama campaign to release all records and correspondence relating to Tony Rezko.

Would that release be going back 20 years and include all the phone conversations and in-person verbal exchanges?

For background on the Auchi-Obama angle, see John Batchelor's Feb 20 report Who are they? and Jack Kelly's Mar 1 Who Is Nadhmi Auchi and What's His Tie to Obama? The Kelly piece repeats some information Batchelor provides but both reports are helpful given the small amount of data that's publicly available at this point about Auchi.

Visit Rezko Watch daily if you want to keep up with the latest on all the parts in the affair.

And tune in the John Batchelor Show tonight; as I mentioned in my last post I don't know which of his two Sunday broadcasts will feature breaking news about the affair but my guess is that he'll lead off with it on one or both broadcasts.

John Batchelor on Barack Obama

Batchelor has started a blog called the John Batchelor Sunday Show, which is good news because he hasn't kept up the website for the 'old' John Batchelor Show.

For those (including Pundita) who have been otherwise occupied these past few weeks, you'll learn at the blog that Batchelor has been doing investigative reporting on the connections between Antoin Rezko and Barack Obama, and between Rezko and a cast of characters straight out of Baghdad Bob's playbook.

This has brought forth accusations from Democrat quarters that Batchelor is a right wing nut doing a hit job on Obama. This clues me that the accusers -- the sincere ones -- have not been closely following Batchelor's show for years. Else they'd know that Batchelor only deals with open source intelligence reports but that often he sits on a great deal of intel that's highly sensitive, shall we term it.

This is by way of indicating that if Batchelor is talking about Rezko and his Baghdad buddies, he is not functioning as a political operative; he's functioning as a war reporter and probably in touch with several sources working the same story.

Batchelor's close attention to the Rezko angle suggests there is more to the story than is publicly available -- at this time.(2) More may come out, if sources sitting on sensitive intel give him the green light. What's certain at this point is that he considers the story serious enough to warrant his audience's close attention.

Today Batchelor announced on the blog that this Sunday he'll be interviewing a "Baghdad guest" about:

Antoin "Tony" Rezko and his association with a Chicago resident and classmate, Aihman Alsammarae, who in 2004 and 2005 was the Minister of Electricity for the CPA in Iraq. I am focused on how the unusual and unfinished Alsammarae story relates to the Chicago and Illinois political history of recent years and also connects to Senator Obama, both as a state senator and a U.S. Senator.(1)

I need to block out time to study all the data that Batchelor's made available or linked to before I comment on the situation. I note that Greg Sargent slammed Batchelor's report for Fox news, but because the comment section at Sargent's blog is "undergoing repair," this meant Batchelor couldn't reply in the comment section to Sargent's criticism.

From Batchelor's comment on his blog, clearly he gave an exhaustive reply to Sargent in an email, which neither he nor Sargent have published on their blogs as of this moment. Batchelor only stated on his blog that:

I replied to Greg Sargent in time with a lengthy explanation of the sources and links necessary to conclude that the Ayers-Obama relationship was not casual, not insignificant, not unthoughtful.

I wrote Batchelor to request that given the importance of the situation he publish his full reply to Sargent. He wrote back that he would do this, but as of this moment the post is not up.

(9:45 PM Update: The link to his reply to Sargent is now posted.)

At first glance the Ayers angle seems a sideshow. But Obama's relationship with William C. Ayers, a confessed domestic terrorist bomber who escaped US prison on a technicality, intersects significantly with their work for the Woods Fund. The fund is a Chicago-based nonprofit on which Obama served as a paid director alongside Ayers.

According to a Feb 25 report filed by Aaron Klein, the fund provided $75,000 in grants to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, "a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a 'catastrophe' "

Klein also reports that:

Obama's 1999 fundraising for the Palestinian Deheisha camp raised the eyebrows of one senior Israeli security official who was contacted yesterday for comment on the issue.

The official, who was not aware of Obama's fundraising, noted Deheisha, which is located near the city of Bethlehem, had a "very active" Palestinian terror apparatus in 1999, carrying out scores of deadly shootings against Israeli civilians that year. [...]

Two of the most deadly suicide bombings in 2002 also were planned from Deheisha, where the suicide bombers originated, said the security official. On one such bombing, in March of that year, 11 people were killed and over 50 injured, four critically when a Deheisha bomber detonated his explosives next to a group of Jewish women waiting with their baby carriages for their husbands to leave a nearby synagogue.

Also see Klein's February 24 report titled Obama worked with terrorist: Senator helped fund organization that rejects 'racist' Israel's existence.(3)

1) I don't know which of the two Sunday night Batchelor radio shows the "Baghdad guest" will be appearing on. The show kicks off at 7:00 PM Eastern Time at New York's WABC-77 AM radio. Then the show rolls over to KFI-640 AM in Los Angeles (10:00 PM Eastern Time). Both shows are available online via the radio website. The KFI show is also available, within a day or so of the broadcast, as a podcast.

2) From Batchelor's Feb 25 report for Human Events:

[...] Antoin "Tony" Rezko is the primary history to investigate for Mr. Obama's political profile. According to Mr. Obama, Mr. Rezko contacted the young law student when he was elected editor of the Harvard Law Review in 1990 and offered him employment in Chicago. Mr. Rezko, a Syrian-born U.S. citizen described by the Chicago press as a "fixer," is now in federal detention in Chicago and about to go on trial on March 3 for purloining up to $6 million from the people of Illinois with various kickback schemes while he was working for the present Democratic Governor, Rod Blagojevich. Mr. Rezko's involvement with the rapid rise of the political career of Mr. Obama long predates his work for the governor and remains largely unexamined. [...]

3) The Washington Post's Election 2008 blog reported on Feb 26 that on Feb 24, in Cleveland, OH, Barack Obama spoke with 100 members of the Jewish community, in the effort to assure them that he's fair-minded about Israel.

For the most detailed analysis to date of Obama's views on Israel, see Ed Lasky's Jan 16 Barack Obama and Israel at American Thinker.

Islamic Banking: $300 billion scam

"Hi Miss P:
You blogged on the RUSI [Royal United Services Institute]
report but I did not see a link to the actual report; in case you did not here is the PDF. Fascinating reading.
Mark Safranski"
[ZenPundit]

Dear Mark:
Thank you for sending the RUSI link; I was terribly rushed with all the Canada Section 13 issues and so I just hurled the gist of the report findings into a post. I will find time to read the entire report but I don't need to read it to know it came years too late.

Bottom line is that Britain is going to survive this era of globalization by becoming the world's major center for Islamic banking and business deals. The price tag is the philosophical and moral linchpins of their culture. End of story.

February 17, The Mail -- A new sharia law controversy erupted last night over Government plans to issue special "Islamic bonds" to pay for Gordon Brown's public-spending programme by raising money from the Middle East. Britain is to become the first Western nation to issue bonds approved by Muslim clerics in line with sharia law, which bans conventional loans involving interest payments as "sinful". [...]

(H/T Free Mark Steyn!)

"Pundita:
The Mail article is also fascinating. Does anyone in Britain realize how easy it is for the "Islamic authenticity" of these bonds to be challenged sometime downstream? [The challenge] won't have to make sense or even prevail -- just kicking up a theological s-storm will deal out financial pain to bondholders.

I'm going to have to find out more about this -- thank you Miss P.!"

Yes, Mark, the British government's intention to support Islamic bonds is a very serious development. I blogged on it earlier; I linked to a speech that Gordon Brown gave a couple years ago.

I dusted off the speech to explain what I believe is the true reason for the Archbishop of Canterbury's willingness to accept elements of Sharia for Britain -- and his eagerness to quash free speech. Brown's speech underscores that Britain's involvement in Islamic financial instruments did not arise overnight.

Once you read Brown's speech you can understand why I termed the archbishop's recent pronouncements "the Rise of Mordor." I invoked Mordor because it struck me as a good metaphor for the rise of a particularly venal form of neo-mercantilism that's set to overtake many national governments.

(Later it occurred to me that readers might assume I was demonizing Islam or Rowan Williams, which is why I dropped the Mordor reference until I could clarify it, but I was quickly overwhelmed again by the Section 13 situation.)

In addition to the severe downside you observe about Islamic bonds, the situation is giving a huge boost in authority to Muslim religious preceptors with terrorist connections who 'halal' banking and financial instruments -- not to mention lining their pockets.

You'll be interested in the following critique of halal banking/mortages by the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC), which contains much information and cites highly informed critiques of the halal financial instruments/banking.

Islamic Banking -- a $300 Billion Deception is the book to read if you want to do an in-depth investigation; if a ZenPundit essay results, it would be a great help and I'll certainly link to it.

From the MCC article you can see that Muslims who are not part of the scam are its biggest victims. It's the same story for Muslims who went to the UK looking for relief from societies that had fallen to Saudification; now they're finding themselves facing the Saudification of British society.

I should add that India recognizes Sharia courts and that this predates the Saudification of Islam. So multiculturalism policy is not just a Western problem; India has paid a very high price for its way of managing the nation's highly diverse ethno-religious population.

January 29, 2008
So-called Sharia Mortgages are a Deception
MCC asks CMHC to drop $100,000 study to introduce Islamic banking in Canada

TORONTO - The Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) has asked the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) to abandon its $100,000 study to introduce so-called Islamic Banking in Canada, saying there should be no room in Canada for Saudi inspired Islamist political doctrines dressed up as innocuous religious requirements.In a letter to Karen Kinsley, Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the president of the Muslim Canadian Congress Farzana Hassan said, "Islamic Banking is nothing more than an attempt by Islamists, with backing from Middle Eastern Financial Institutions and their Western partners, to scare Muslim Canadians into believing that they should pay more to the banks and demand less in return as an act of religiosity. "

"Sharia Banking is an obscene attempt to fleece an already marginalized Muslim community while promising them the exact opposite. On the one hand Imams are warning Muslims of hellfire if they deal with the existing banking systems, and on the other the same clerics are being paid by banks to herd Muslims towards a system that is based on lies and deception.

What we need is a better deal from the banks for all Canadians, rather than dividing us up into religious groups and pacing obstacles in the way of better integration of all Canadians. Our banking system has developed in Canada over the last 200 years, and there is no need to adapt it to the failed economies and medieval systems modeled on Saudi Arabia and Iran," added Ms. Hassan.

In the letter, Ms Hassan said it was unfortunate that some Canadian Banks are succumbing to the lure of easy money that comes from supposed interest-free banking where customers receive zero interest on their deposits while paying more to the banks.

"While the banks and their paid Imams and sheiks will make handsome returns, Muslim Canadians will end up as losers, with promises of rewards in the afterlife," she wrote. "Religion has no place in the banking or mortgage industry and banks should desist from employing imams or sheikhs who sanctify so called Islamic bank products and mortgages. We are not living in the middle ages to get our financial cues from clerics claiming guidance from the divine," she added.

Explaining the deceptive workings of interest-free Sharia banking, as practised by Saudi and other Islamic banks, Ms Hassan said: "Muslim bankers and their hired clerics claim they indulge in interest-free banking, but in reality they hide this interest.

So-called Islamic banking institutions claim they operate on "zero interest." However, the fundamental characteristic of charging interest is never truly eliminated in Islamic banking, but rather is hidden.

The MCC president referred the CMHC president to Muhammad Saleem, a former president and CEO of Park Avenue Bank in New York, who has written a book, Islamic Banking — A $300 Billion Deception.

Mr. Saleem, who was a senior banker with Bankers Trust where, among other responsibilities, he headed the Middle East division and served as adviser to a prominent Islamic bank based in Bahrain, dismisses the founding premise of Islamic banking, saying, "Islamic banks do not practise what they preach: they all charge interest, but disguised in Islamic garb. Thus they engage in deceptive and dishonest banking practises." [...]

Even a cursory look at the names, affiliations and views of popular shari’a scholars, such as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Sheikh Mohamed Ali Elgari, Faysal Mawlawi, Sheikh Nizam Yaquby, Suleyman al-Maniya and others , many of whom sit on the shari’a advisory boards of dozens of Islamic banks and get paid princely sums from each, would make it clear that most are hard line Islamists and, in at least some cases, open supporters of terrorism. [...]

Read the rest of the MCC article here.

Marc Lemire and Pundita continue their discussion of Section 13 issues

Police, forensic experts and Crown prosecutors were so confident -- so smug -- that they built their case backwards, manipulating and creating evidence to prove the guilt of a suspect who could not possibly be innocent. But he was. Immediately after Morin's exoneration, the then-Deputy Attorney General of the Province of Ontario, speaking on behalf of the Attorney General, issued a statement:

"The minister is deeply committed to maintaining the public's faith in the system, and to ensuring that the ministry takes whatever steps are necessary that such a situation does not reoccur. To accomplish this ... a public airing into the justice system's handling of Mr. Morin's case is required."

There are elements to the administration of Section 13 cases that remind me of the most infamous miscarriage of justice in Canadian history, which is the criminal case against Guy Paul Morin.

Before readers familiar with the Morin case send me an outraged letter, I would ask them to study Marc Lemire's attempt to obtain evidence that would clear him of an accusation by the complainant in a Section 13 case, and the court's rejection of his request for a subpoena. Then they can reference Footnote 5 in this post and start following the links.

The Lemire request does not relate to a matter of national security or a protected witness in a criminal case. So on what grounds are Canada's courts and human rights commissions able to hide behind 'the public interest' to prevent Lemire from bringing forth evidence that suggests a human rights commission manufactured evidence against him?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the basic principle the same in the Morin and Lemire cases? In both cases, isn't there a willful miscarriage of justice? No? Then explain the difference; I'm all ears.

Now that I have that off my chest, this post continues my email discussions with Marc Lemire, which came in the wake of his criticism of comments I made in an earlier Pundita post, and which was our first contact. For background see Marc Lemire gives Pundita a tour of the Section 13 Maze.

Readers who want to learn the details of Marc's case should visit his Freedom Site website.

"Marc, Is it fair to say that probably no Canadian knows more about Section 13 than you?"

"Pundita, I am not a lawyer. I am a computer professional. I have studied the law [relating to Section 13] and read most of the decisions. Made reports on it. Understand and document how the law has been abused. But there are many others far more knowledgeable than myself. Most notably, my courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka."

"Marc, I recall it was your lawyer whose line of questioning prompted Dean Stacey [lead investigator for the federal Canada Human Rights Commission - "CHRC"] to state in testimony that he considered freedom of speech to be an American concept.

One of the crucial points you bring out is that it's not just Section 13 that's the problem. I noticed this first while studying the Taylor Supreme Court case. But from your discussion it's obvious that one can't understand how Section 13 works out in practice without also studying Section 40(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act. [1]

So my question is whether Section 40(5)(b) is in clear contradiction to other parts of the Human Rights Act."

"Pundita, Section 40 seems to be written for public interest-type suits. Where for instance a union goes after Bell Canada.[2] The union itself is not a vulnerable group. But they are allowed to proceed.

Section 40 is clearly open to abuse, as people with a political agenda can use that in conjunction with Section 13 to attack and silence people even when the material at issue has nothing to do with the person laying the complaint.

Second to Section 13, the worst section is 27:

The CHRC shall “…try by persuasion, publicity or any other means that it considers appropriate to discourage and reduce discriminatory practices” Section 27(h) - Canadian Human Rights Act.

The CHRC has interpreted this to mean they can do anything they choose. This includes sending threatening letters to ISPs in other countries (that didn't even involve Canadians)! At one point we hear the CHRC has written 200-300 letters to ISPs [in the effort] to have websites shut down.

Section 13 is an oddity in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The rest of the Act covers actual actions or perceived actions, such as refusal to hire or rent. A majority of such cases are mediated, and only a tiny percentage go to a tribunal. And of those most are settled prior to a hearing. Keep in mind the CHRA is only remedial legislation. It is not meant to punish or to assign "moral blame-worthiness".

Contrast that with Section 13 cases. Most such cases are sent to a [human rights] tribunal. Hardly any are mediated. Of the 100 cases I reviewed, I think that over 80% of cases were referred to a tribunal.

Section 13 is being used to punish people. Consider that in my case the material under consideration was removed PRIOR to my learning about the complaint. But five years later [the CHRC still] couldn't care less.

There are quite a few Section 13 cases relating to published material that had not been available on the Internet for years, but the writers were still hauled before a tribunal. The material was gone, thus the case should have ended. Punishment, not 'remedy,' can be the ONLY conclusion drawn about the CHRC actions in such cases."

"Marc, Do you make publicly available the testimony of all the experts you've called as witnesses?"

"Pundita, Yes; all my witnesses' expert reports are online. Dr Donald Downs gave great testimony. He is an expert in freedom of speech and widely published. [3]

I am a young father of two and not well off, so I'd like to point out that the expert witnesses I called testified for little to no money. Unlike the two experts called by the government, who each collected at least $25,000 for their testimony."

"Marc, Are you a neo-Nazi, as Wikipedia describes you? [4] Brief reply, please, that I can fit into a post."

"Pundita, I am a free speech and immigration reform activist, so I have nothing to apologize for. As for the lie of calling me a neo-Nazi, it is a smear tactic used by radical 'speech control / anti-racist' elements.

The CHRC, Richard Warman, the police (after Warman complaints) have poured over every word I have written, since at least 1995. They have not been able to come up with ANYTHING Nazi inspired, etc. Which is why magically [hate message] posts started to appear on a message board I had, which would later form the complaint against me. [5]

Once I alleged what Warman did, the CHRC dropped the Anne Cools hate post [from evidence] and fought desperately for the court not to hear anything about it and to block me from calling any evidence on it.

When I term persons a "thought control censor," I quote things they say to support my claim. For example, Dean Steacy's quote about free speech being an American concept. But notice in the Wikipedia articles that there is not a SINGLE quote to support the claim that I'm a Nazi, fascist, racist, etc.

Actually, I do mention Nazis often on my website -- not in any supportive way, but to correctly label what the CHRC has become.

I even made a spreadsheet with examples to point out where the Nazis and the CHRC are the same. A prime example: both used biased and unfair tribunals where the respondent had NO defence. And 'judges' were appointed for their loyalty for the party or doctrine. In Canada it's called "sensitivity to human rights" and it's a requirement for the tribunal judges.

I have been targeted on Wikipedia since I started bringing out my defence at the [human rights] tribunal. My defence is devastating and targets the evidence, the CHRC, the law itself and even the complainant. I allege the complainant [Richard Warman] has posted a highly inflammatory entry on my message board [in the effort to manufacture evidence] that forms part of the case against me.

I have had to get the owner of Wikipedia to intervene numerous times and wipe out what was written but those intent on using Wikipedia to anonymously defame people slither back within a few days.

Just look at the History tab. (Jimbo Wales is a founder of Wiki.)"

1) Section 40(1) of the Human Rights Act:

"Subject to subsections (5) and (7), any individual or group of individuals having reasonable grounds for believing that a person is engaging or has engaged in a discriminatory practice may file with the Commission a complaint in a form acceptable to the Commission."

40(5)(b) "No complaint in relation to a discriminatory practice may be dealt with by the Commission under this Part unless the act or omission that constitutes the practice [...] occurred in Canada and was a discriminatory practice within the meaning of section 8, 10, 12 or 13 in respect of which no particular individual is identifiable as the victim."

2) Bell Canada is Canada's largest telephone and telecommunications company.

3) The link I provided is to Wikipedia. Because some Wikipedia articles have been edited by opponents of Marc Lemire, I'm taking the cautionary step of publishing the entire Wikipedia article on Donald Downs, as I found it on today's date:

Donald Downs is an American political science professor and known for his work on the First Amendment.Downs has political science degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Ph.D. from the University of California - Berkeley. He has taught at the University of Michigan and the University of Notre Dame and currently teaches political science and legal studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Downs has written many scholary articles and books on the First Amendment and various legally themed books.Downs is a co-founder of the academic freedom centered group, CAFAR. The group's mission is to protect and advance academic freedom rights on campus and beyond. Key Scholarly Works:

Nazis in Skokie: Freedom, Community and the First Amendment
The New Politics of Pornography
More than Victims: Battered Women, the Syndrome Society, and the Law
Cornell `69: Liberalism and the Crisis of the American University
Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus"

4) From Wikipedia article on Matthew Lauder: "Matthew Lauder is currently the subject of a lawsuit brought by neo-Nazi leader Marc Lemire against himself and the Guelph Multicultural Center for alleged factual inaccuracies in his report."

5) See Freedom Site for documentation. Also, for a quick introduction to this part of the case see the PDF that Ezra Levant has made available concerning the Lemire transcript Vol. 4, Page 769, in which Richard Warman admits that on November 15, 2003 he logged onto the Freedom Site message board as "Lucy," which occurred while he was in the employ of the (federal) Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Lemire has also presented evidence that a hate message against Canadian Senator Anne Cools published on September 5, 2003 on his website under the screen name '90sAREover' came from the same computer as the one used by the Lucy poster.