Who is Louis Farrakhan and what does he have to do with Barack Obama? Those are questions that were raised in embarrassing style this week, but let us, gentle readers, acquaint ourselves more fully with the leader of the domestic “Nation of Islam,” a violent, black supremacy organization. The invaluable Discover the Networks, explains:
Farrakhan also has a long, well-documented history of venom-laced references to the ‘white devils’ and Jewish ‘bloodsuckers’ who purportedly decimate America’s black community from coast to coast. He has referred to Judaism as a ‘gutter religion,’ and to Adolf Hitler as ‘a very great man’ — though he later claimed that he had meant only that Hitler was ‘wickedly great.’ He has made innumerable statements depicting whites and Jews as loathsome, racist oppressors of blacks.
Farrakahn’s statements and preaching make the Rev. Jeremiah Wright seem positively pro-American by comparison. Wright, as I’m sure you recall, gentle readers, was the minister of the church Obama attended in Chicago for some 20 years, who married Barack and Michelle Obama and baptized their children, and who most famously thundered from the pulpit “Not God bless America, God damn America!” Mr. Obama claimed that despite attending the church 2-3 times weekly for twenty years, he never heard Wright, who was vehemently anti-white, utter a racist or anti-American word, and had no idea of Wright’s politics. Obama also claimed he could no more disown Wright than he could disown his own white grandmother–shortly before he threw both under the campaign bus. More about Farrakhan:
In March 2000 the Philadelphia Inquirer quoted Farrakhan saying, ‘White people are potential humans … they haven’t evolved yet.’ At other times, he has referred to whites as ‘vicious beasts’ and ‘the skunks of the planet.’ Additional noteworthy Farrakhan statements include the following:
“You [Jews] are wicked deceivers of the American people. You have sucked their blood. You are not real Jews (who everyone knows were black) You are the synagogue of Satan, and you have wrapped your tentacles around the US government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell… . But if you choose to crucify me (subtle reference to the Deicide charge), know that Allah will crucify you.”
When he was not attacking white people in general and Americans in particular, he, like Obama, savaged America’s allies and embraced America’s enemies:
On numerous occasions, Farrakhan has made alliances with avowed foreign enemies of the United States. In January 1996, for instance, he formed a partnership with Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi, who pledged $1 billion to help Farrakhan develop a Muslim political lobby in the U.S. According to Libya’s official news agency Jana, Qadhafi announced: ‘We agreed with Louis Farrakhan and his delegation to mobilize in a legal and legitimate form the oppressed minorities — and at their forefront the blacks, Arab Muslims and Red Indians — for they play an important role in American political life and have a weight in U.S. elections.’ The Jana story further stated that Qadhafi and Farrakhan had pledged to fight America from the ‘inside.’ ‘Our confrontation with America,’ said Qadhafi, ‘was [previously] like a fight against a fortress from outside, and today [with the NOI alliance] we found a breach to enter into this fortress and confront it.
Farrakhan was particularly fond of Obama, a fondness Obama realized he had to keep beyond arm’s length:
Also in February 2008, Farrakhan called Obama ‘a herald of the Messiah.’ ‘Barack has captured the youth,’ said the NOI leader, referring to the passionate support Obama had drawn from young people in America. ‘And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the messiah speaks, the youth will hear. And the messiah is absolutely speaking.
Now, the “Messiah” is once again being tarnished, as Talking Points Memo.com reports:
A journalist announced last week that he will publish a photograph of then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan that he took in 2005 at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting, but did not make public because he believed it would have ‘made a difference’ to Obama’s political future.
The photographer, Askia Muhammad, told the Trice Edney News Wire that he ‘gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy.’’“But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was President, it was kept under cover,’ Muhammad said.
Asked whether he thought the photo’s release would have affected Obama’s presidential campaign, Muhammad said, ‘I insist. It absolutely would have made a difference.’
Reached by TPM on Thursday, Muhammad said a ‘staff member” for the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] contacted him ‘sort of in a panic” after he took the photo at a caucus meeting in 2005. TPM has published the photo above with Muhammad’s permission.
‘I sort of understood what was going on,’ Muhammad told TPM. ‘I promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard Farrakhan,’ the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff.
“It absolutely would have made a difference?” Muhammad is a master of understatement:
A spokesperson for the Congressional Black Caucus suggested that TPM contact the caucus’ former chair, Mel Watt, who now leads the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Watt did not immediately respond to TPM’s request for comment.
The CBC didn’t comment? This is my shocked face…
During the 2008 presidential election, conservatives questioned the indirect ties between Farrakhan and Obama, who attended a church that gave Farrakhan an award. At a 2008 presidential debate in Cleveland, Obama said he had ‘been very clear’ in his ‘denunciation’ of Farrakhan’s remarks.
Right. Just how much damage would that photo have done? Alan Dershowitz, an Obama supporter and one of the most influential Democrats for decades, explains, via Fox News:
Harvard Law Professor and longtime Democrat Alan Dershowitz said he would not have campaigned for then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) if he knew about the future president’s photo op with Louis Farrakhan.
Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, is a ‘virulent anti-Semite and anti-American,’ Dershowitz said on ‘Fox & Friends.’
‘He has called Judaism a gutter religion. He is a horrible, horrible human being,’ he said.
The loss of Dershowitz’s support would have been a heavy, perhaps even fatal blow to Obama’s presidential hopes. Surely the broader media were aware of the photo, and would have done all they could to hide or minimize it even if Muhammad had released it in 2008. They’re certainly not reporting on it in 2018.
Might this released photo be the beginning of a flood of truth about Barack Obama’s actual background and beliefs? His usefulness to the Democrat party is clearly diminishing by the day, hastened by President Trump’s success in erasing Obama’s unconstitutional and destructive accomplishments. Might we soon discover his college grades, his application information–it’s long been speculated he identified himself as foreign, perhaps Kenyan, to gain advantage in admissions–and perhaps even the 2003 tape in which he praised an anti-Israel terrorist, Rashid Khalidi?
This week [September, 2012], Breitbart News offered a $100,000 reward to anyone who produced the infamous 2003 tapes of Barack Obama at an event honoring Palestinian anti-Israel radical Rashid Khalidi. And today, James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times took to his keyboard today to write a diatribe defending the Times‘ refusal to make public those tapes. While Rainey gives several justifications for not releasing the tape itself – guarding the source of the tape being the most prevalent – he offers no justification for why the Times refuses to offer even a complete transcript of that evening’s events.
Rainey rips the ‘Khalidi video mythology … which [Breitbart News] speculates will lay bare the ugly back story of Obama’s disdain of Israel … and his effusive support of Mideast radicals. Such fantastical thinking is rife not just on Breitbart.com but across the conservative Interwebs.’ There is nothing fantastical about suggesting that the reason that the Times didn’t originally report Obama’s words at the event, or the more radical words of the evening, was to protect their beloved presidential candidate. Given the Times‘ track record of Obama defense, it’s the only rational conclusion to draw.
The LA Times retains a video of the event under lock and key, which it has never released. With Obama losing relevance, perhaps The Times will find news value in the video, where during the Age of Obama, it was treated as radioactive waste.
As Jim Treacher famously said: