Let’s be clear (to use Obama’s favorite phrase): This is not just the politics of personal destruction. It’s a vendetta of campaign finance destruction. Under the guise of “disclosure,” Team Obama is exploiting the power of high government office to intimidate lawful, peaceful contributors who support limited-government causes.

In a scathing fundraising e-mail appeal, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina name-checked wealthy free-market philanthropists Charles and David Koch — along with a growing movement of grassroots conservatives who have freely, voluntarily and legally given money to the Koch-founded nonprofit activist group Americans for Prosperity and its sister foundation. As a speaker at several AFP events over the past three years, I’ve met thousands of like-minded, hardworking Americans who support their work at the local, state and federal levels.

The Koches’ sins are to 1. follow tax law and protect the identities of donors to their charitable organizations, and 2. exercise their free speech by funding advocacy ads informing the public about the Obama administration’s jobs toll destruction and failed green energy “investments.” (Their most recent TV spot zeroed in on the taxpayer-funded Solyndra bankruptcy.)

“When you attempt to drown out (Americans’) voices through unlimited, secret contributions to pursue a special-interest agenda that conflicts with what’s best for our nation, you must expect some scrutiny of your actions,” Messina railed. The threat of scrutiny was backed by Obama himself, whose official campaign Twitter account directed 12 million-plus followers this week to “add your name to demand that the Koch brothers make their donors public.”

But Obama’s own former top officials run a so-called super PAC (Priorities USA) that also maintains nonprofit status and subsidizes advocacy ads while protecting its donor base. The White House, of course, is mum on the unlimited, secret contributions that Obama is now encouraging wealthy liberals and lobbyists to make in pursuit of his own special-interest agenda — i.e., re-election.

The president’s flapping lips are also sealed when it comes to applying his disclosure standards to the shadowy, George Soros-backed Center for American Progress, which has supplied the Obama administration with countless top policy staffers, including special Department of Health and Human Services assistant Michael Halle and HHS Director Jeanne Lambrew, a former senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

CAP founder John Podesta was Obama’s transition chief, overseeing the backroom process of rewarding friends and allies with plum positions. CAP flacks shrugged off conflict-of-interest questions: “We respect the privacy of supporters who have chosen not to make their donations public,” CAP spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said.

As for respecting the privacy rights of Obama’s foes? Not so much.

Heartland, based in Chicago, is a free-market think tank that tackles a variety of important public policy issues, such as health care, education and climate change. (Readers will note that the author serves as an advisor to Heartland on environmental affairs, which is an unpaid, voluntary position.) Early this year, Heartland Senior Fellow James M. Taylor got into an entertaining public debate with Dr. Gleick over the “reality” of anthropogenic global warming at Forbes.com. Both Taylor and Gleick argued their positions passionately. Unable to counter Taylor’s positions effectively, an increasingly frustrated Gleick turned to the tactic that so many alarmists eventually use: impugning the motives of the people who disagree with him. He wrote: I wonder, however, if Taylor would publish the list of who really DOES fund the Heartland Institute. It seems to be a secret — no information is listed on their website about actual contributors of that $7 million budget that they use to deny the reality of climate change (and previously, the health effects of tobacco — their other focus).

In the past, Heartland used to release its donor list, but stopped doing so after radical opponents used that information to try to harass funders. In Taylor’s words:

The Heartland Institute used to [release the names of donors], while similarly appealing to other groups to do the same. However, environmental activists and other extremist groups used the information to launch a campaign of personal harassment against Heartland Institute donors while simultaneously refusing to release the names of their own donors. It is funny how Gleick rants against the alleged harassment of Katharine Hayhoe yet remains silent about the harassment of people who disagree with him.

Taylor had thus inadvertently signaled Gleick how to hurt Heartland: release the names of the people who support the organization. Accordingly (by his own admission) Gleick called the Heartland Institute, identifying himself as a Heartland board member whose e-mail address had changed. A Heartland staffer then sent Gleick confidential documents based on the doctor’s false identification. Those documents were subsequently posted on the Internet at DeSmogBlog, a popular alarmist website. Other alarmist sympathizers on the web and in the mainstream media then picked up the story.

Well, isn’t this rich? And I do mean rich. President Obama, man of the people, will deliver his presidential nomination acceptance speech at the Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, N.C. — so that Democratic Party fundraisers can reward big donors with skyboxes and other lavish perks.

As usual, the White House and its allies are trying to camouflage naked partisan money-grubbing in populist garb.

“I think this would be a great opportunity to have tens of thousands of North Carolinians and others outside of the state to see and participate in the convention process,” one North Carolina Democratic Party flack told the Charlotte Observer.

But it’s the heavyweight contributors, not the hoi polloi, to whom convention organizers are catering as they struggle to raise some $37 million to cover the coronation celebration’s costs. The self-proclaimed Party of the 99 Percent is reportedly busy creating special-access VIP packages for the 1 percent — under the illusion of throwing open its doors to the masses. DNC officials refuse to disclose fundraising updates until after the convention, even as they champion their own “openness and accessibility.”

And no doubt, Obama will use his stadium-size pulpit to “stand up” to the very same “fat cats” who’ll be watching him while sipping Courvoisier in their DNC-appointed luxury seats.

Such is the audacity of progressive cognitive dissonance.

Despite the DNC’s vaunted promise to ban business donations and first lady Michelle Obama’s faux-folksy public relations campaign for a “people’s convention,” Bank of America (headquartered in North Carolina and Charlotte’s largest corporate presence) will be front and center at the festivities. No surprise. The Democrats and Bank of America have maintained a long, lucrative relationship as reciprocal bailout buddies.

During the 2010 midterm elections, former DNC chairman and ex-Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine secured a $15 million revolving line of credit at BofA and then finagled another $17 million loan from the taxpayer-bailed-out bank. According to Federal Election Commission records, BofA accepted as collateral the DNC’s donor mailing list. Yep, its donor mailing list for $32 million in loans. As investigative reporter Richard Pollock asked at the time: “What message does a largely unsecured $32 million credit line for the Democratic Party send to thousands of cash-starved small businesses across the nation who can’t secure any credit even with tangible assets?”

Message: crony business as usual.

Normal, sane Democrats want their party back. They are tired of electing moderates who turn out to be socialists.  They want quality candidates who will do what is best for America and they know that in order to get them elected they will need to defeat the corrupt Democrat machine, something they understand in a way that we on the right we never will.

They are going to need a lot of armchair tea partiers. A few more Matthew Vadums might also be a good idea.

For those who are unfamiliar with the gentlemen of Hillbuzz, they are Democrats from Chicago who worked on the Hillary campaign, helped launch the PUMA movement, and were and continue to be horribly defamed and persecuted by radicals on the left (mainly the Nutroots). They are the modern equivalent of Reagan Democrats. They recognize that their party is now dominated by a Tiny Minority of Extremists and they want them voted out, starting with a handful of incumbents who they feel have betrayed the American people (not just their party).

Surely many on the Right can see this as a noble endeavor. The Hillbuzz boyz are a radical progressive’s and a fake Blue Dog’s worst nightmare.  They understand Chicago politics and the inner workings of the Democrat party.  They know how to defeat them.  Their plan is not perfect, nor is it likely to be sufficient in and of itself, but it is doable and, if executed well enough, it just might work. So set your ideological purity aside and read on:

Keep your eyes peeled for the current president’s repeated call to DNC donors to pony up more cash.

We’ll let you in on a little secret: the reason these donors give to the DNC is not because they actually believe in what the DNC is doing. They give money because they want things, and most of what they want is pictures of them with famous people to hang on their walls at home, or in their offices. Whenever we do special events here in Chicago, the houses we go to are filled with snapshots of the owners with every Democrat imaginable over the last 20 years. 95% of these pictures are taken at $1,000 a person photo-op meet and greets. Those political evenings feature weak drinks and room temperature cheese. Occasionally, here in Chicago, there are hot waiters in little tuxes, passing mediocre spinach puffs. If you are lucky.

We think something unprecedented could be mounted by the coalition of moderates, independents, and conservatives that comes here to HillBuzz, using our own fundraising background and knowledge of this scene, to drive a temporary wedge between Democrats and their donors.

It worked in 1980 and it can work again.

We’ve organized these fundraisers before. We know how quickly panic mode sets in. If you are running a meet and greet for 300 people, and it’s two weeks out and you have not booked 200 for the event, then national gets on your case in a big way. If it’s a few days out, and you are not oversold, man alive, you are in trouble.

Very few of the people who attend these events want it know they are attending them. They’re there for the pictures, only, not so much the cause. So, using FEC records to identify the top donors to the 60 Democrats in the Senate currently, then organizing letter writing, email, and telephone campaigns to ask these top donors, politely, to stop donating to these Democrats will severely curb DNC fundraising efforts in 2010.

Then Obama will have to campaign harder for candidates, only to see them lose like the Colts and everyone else who gets his endorsement.

What you need to understand is that these big donors bring many smaller donors to the parties with them. If Mrs. Smith isn’t coming, neither are her assistants, or their friends, or all the people who want to usurp Mrs. Smith some day as the grand dame of the Chicago fundraising scene.

Who are these people? They sound like Cruella DeVille’s handlers.

Now, our goal is to make a dent in their fundraising. We know we won’t ever take down their machines completely. But, we guarantee a dent will be noticed by national. If people who operate in shadows and attend these events just to get pictures on their walls suddenly start getting a thousand letters a week telling them to stop supporting Liberals, these people will stop going to these events, we guarantee. And that will cause panic in Senate offices…and that panic will be telegraphed to the DNC…and all Hell will break loose all over the place.

Who’s ready to see Howard Dean’s head explode?

FP: Ines Laufer, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

In our last discussion, we focused on how Germany has exposed a young girl to female genital mutilation and how Germany, and Europe in general, is not protecting young girls from this barbaric crime.

Today I would like to talk to you about a new campaign you have started. Tell us about it.

Laufer: Thanks Jamie.

Our research brought to light that to up to 400,000 sponsored girls who are marketed by the big development organizations PLAN International, World Vision, Kindernothilfe and ChildFund do not receive protection from female genital mutilation. We have started a new campaign, at sponsoredgirl.com, to protect the girls from female genital mutilation. We invite your readers to come join us.

These children are marketed in order to acquire money from trustful donors. The donors pay about 30 Euros per month – which means 360 Euros per year, in the belief that the organizations do all they can for providing a better life — including health for the sponsored children. PLAN International for instance, acquires about 72 million Euros every year, just by marketing the 240,000 concerned girls.

But asked about female genital mutilation on the sponsored girls, these organizations openly and publicly claim that demanding the safe protection of the girls would be against their approaches and against their policy.

So, by failing to demand, to stipulate and to control the protection of the sponsored girls from FGM, the organizations must be considered complicit in every single crime perpetrated against a little girl in this regard.

We are The Alliance for Protection of Girls from Female Genital Mutilation. We consider this simply scandalous and unacceptable. It is a crime against the girls and also a system of defrauding the donors.

That’s why we launched this campaign. It is suited to go the largest step forward in the direction of an end of FGM since the beginning of the fight against these practices. It could lead to true and immediate protection of a few million girls.

FP: Ok, what concretely does the campaign demand?

Laufer: It demands that all organizations who work with the sponsored-child-system, should make sure that all girls in their projects – in the relevant regions – are safely protected from violence like female genital mutilation.

This demand is based on the cognition that it is not only possible but very easy to achieve that goal – and even more: It does not cost any money.

It is just about the change of the attitude, approach and policy of the organisations. We call for:

[1] The stipulation of the safety and protection from FGM of the sponsored girls in the preconditions for support for the communities – and regular check ups.

[2] A careful selection of the project partners, which means that only those communities that support children’s rights will be targets of help. This means an investment of donations in the most economic and effective way.

[3] The complete solution – the two steps to safe protection – you find here.

FP: How do the mentioned organizations react to your activism on behalf of the victims of FGM?

Laufer: To be honest, Jamie, they all react quite similar so far, with a mixture of ostrich behavior (putting their heads into the sand) and helpless efforts to defend their current policy of tolerating and accepting the mutilations of thousands of sponsored girls.

But in fact, they deliver us one proof after the other that confirms how much this campaign is needed – how important it is and that it will have a deep impact to truly stop FGM.

To the people who sign and send the petition letters, they send standard-answers which make clear that they did not even read or understand what we demand. They still refuse to admit that they are fully responsible for every single mutilated girl in their projects because of their failure to implement the adequate protection measures. And they do not have any scruple to simply tell tales.

We can sum it up as following: There is much ignorance and denial and no adequate seriousness or goodwill to even understand what should be changed and how.

But I am sure this will change soon.

Only, it doesn’t lie in our hands anymore. Now, the world public – every person who feels concerned and disturbed by the knowledge that every day, thousands of little girls are mutilated by FGM – is asked to help the campaign.

FP: What exactly can people do to help the campaign? Is it about money and donations?

Laufer: No, Jamie – it is absolutely not about money or donations. It is about something much more important: It’s about the power of everyone’s voice. By investing exactly two minutes of time and a few clicks, everyone can help – while comfortably sitting in front of the computer. Every reader can help free this world from the nightmare of female genital mutilation. It has never been so easy.

At the www.sponsoredgirl.com website, you find four prepared letters, addressed to PLAN International World Vision, Kindernothilfe and ChildFund, see here.

Every person who signs and sends the letters – and who even steps back from current sponsorship-contracts, enlarges the pressure on the organizations. And this helps us to strengthen our efforts in demanding them to consequently protect the children.

That’s why: Please sign the letters and send them to your friends that they can do it too.

FP: So how has the campaign been going?

Laufer: Well, let me tell you this. In the last ten days, more than 750 letters have been sent to the organizations already. But we would like to achieve at least 5,000 to put the campaign at the next level of public pressure.

FP: Ines Laufer, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview. I encourage all of our readers who want to help stop this genocide against girls to go to www.sponsoredgirl.com.