MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
The answer can be found here:
On William Ayers and Barack Obama
Finally, almost two years into this presidential campaign, the mainstream media is talking about Barack Obama's relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist and Weather Underground member William Ayers.
Finally, American voters do not need to dig deep in order to find out that Barack Obama was hand-chosen by Ayers to serve as board chair on Ayers' radical, $140 million educational initiative, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Perhaps, too, we can now look forward to hearing from the mainstream press about Ayers' service alongside Obama on another board -- this one for the non-profit Woods Fund, which channeled $75,000 in grant money to the Arab-American Action Network, a group founded by Rashid Khalidi, another old friend of Obama and a man said to be a former operative of the PLO.
Ayers not only saw enough in Barack Obama, the fresh-faced Chicago lawyer who had spent the previous few years representing organizations such as ACORN--the community-organizing group currently under investigation in ten different states for voter fraud--and others, to hand-select him for the chairmanship of his pet educational indoctrination project, he saw enough in Obama to propel him into the political arena. Indeed, it was only a few years after being chosen by Ayers to chair the CAC that Obama began the historical run which led him from the Illinois State Senate to the United States Senate and now nearly to the doorstep of the White House -- in fact, Barack Obama's very first political fundraiser was at the home and in the living room of none other than William Ayers and wife Bernardine Dohrn.
Dohrn, of course, was Ayers' comrade-in-arms, just as responsible as he for the bombings and the insurrection which landed her in prison while he walked on a technicality. Both Ayers and Dohrn were present for the founding of the Weather Underground terrorist group, and it was at one of those early meetings where Dohrn raised a three-finger, fork-like salute and praised Charles Manson and his "family" for the murders of actress Sharon Tate and eight others in the Hollywood hills. Tate was the wife of Polish film director Roman Polanski and, pregnant, was stabbed several times in the womb with a fork.
"Dig it," said Dohrn at the time. "First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork in a victim's stomach. Wild!"
Fast-forward to 2008, and Barack Obama dismissed his connections with Ayers and Dohrn by saying that they were just people "who live in my neighborhood," that Ayers was just an English teacher, and that he was only eight years old when the Weather Underground reached their murderous peak and therefore shouldn't be associated with Ayers' radical nature.
Don't fall into that trap.
Don't be satisfied with hearing that these awful things happened so long ago that Barack Obama simply cannot be associated with them. Don't be satisfied with the argument that Ayers and Dohrn have somehow grown over time. They have not. On September 11, 2001 of all days, the New York Times ran an article in which Ayers refused to apologize for his actions and actually stated that his group "didn't do enough." Furthermore, just last year, in a taped BBC radio interview, Ayers said the following:
"It’s astonishing to me that the tiny little intervention we made against this absolute orgy of violence in Vietnam and our tiny little intervention is held up as an example of terrific violence, when in fact thousands of people were being killed every week in an unjust war, and yet no one says to [Tony] Blair “by the way, do you think that bombing is really the right way to go?”
I think that, in the context of the Vietnam war, in the context of the crisis, as in the context of the abolition movement against slavery, sometimes extraordinary tactics are required and I don’t make any apology for it at all.
We never threw a bomb at a person, but we did feel that it was legitimate to try to destroy property, property which was being sent to Vietnam to kill hundreds and thousands of people. Yes, we thought that was justified and I DO think that was justified."
The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets are characterizing Ayers simply as a "1960s-era radical." Don't fall into that trap. Don't be satisfied with that because, in fact, Ayers' group did more than just bomb "property which was being sent to Vietnam." In February of 1970, Ayers' group firebombed the home of a New York State Supreme Court justice who had been presiding over a criminal case involving members of the Black Panther Party indicted on charges of plotting to bomb New York City landmarks and various commercial and shopping outlets.
A statement released on Wednesday by the son of that judge, John Murtagh, now a New York attorney and city council member in Yonkers, N.Y., detailed Ayers' role in the firebombing of his father's house and closely echoed his previous account of the attack which ran in the New York Daily News in April.
Early on the morning of Feb. 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car.
I still recall, as though it were a dream, thinking that someone was lifting and dropping my bed as the explosions jolted me awake, and I remember my mother pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn't leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. Sunlight, the next morning, revealed three sentences of blood-red graffiti on our sidewalk: Free the Panther 21; The Viet Cong have won; Kill the pigs.
Now that, after more than a year-and-a-half of silence, news of Barack Obama's chairmanship of Ayers' Chicago Annenberg Challenge has jumped into the mainstream press and subsequently into the living rooms of American voters, Obama supporters are making the argument that the Illinois senator merely "crossed paths" with the unrepentant domestic terrorist, that they were simply business associates very occasionally in the same room and nothing more.
Don't fall into that trap.
It's simply not true. William Ayers hand-picked Barack Obama to handle the distribution of the millions of dollars from CAC coffers. Look at the time spent on the board not only there, but at the Woods Fund as well. Look at the political fundraisers. Look at the support. Look at the speaking engagements at which both appeared. Look at the dinners admittedly shared. And look at the similarity of their outlook on America.
Barack Obama is a politician, Ayers and Dohrn are politically-motivated domestic terrorists -- as a politician, how could you break bread with people like Ayers and Dohrn and not hear about their political views? Are we to assume they spoke about the Chicago Bears? The weather up there in the Windy City? These people are ideological sociopaths who could care less about killing and injuring innocent people so long as their views are advanced and their ideas effected. Forcing their worldview onto America with bombs took a back seat to doing so though education ... and politics. They saw a perfect political conduit in a young Barack Obama. Through the years, are we to assume that they haven't cultivated their little sapling into the political redwood he is today? After all, why plant bombs outside government buildings to convey a message when you can, instead, help send a hard-wired radical into the White House and elicit the same result?
Besides, even if they did only "cross paths," ideology can be as contagious as a head cold, especially so considering that Obama was at such a malleable age when he was first taken under Ayers'
wing. Think about it. Vladimir Lenin certainly didn't work alongside Karl Marx when Marx and Friedrich Engels published the Communist Manifesto in 1848 (Lenin was born in 1870). In fact, Lenin and Marx may have never "crossed paths" at all -- yet the ideology certainly rubbed off.
If all else fails for Barack Obama, the American voting public will hear those on the political left argue that this election should be about so-called "real issues" and not about people like William Ayers, just as Obama supporters argued that the primary should have been about more than just Rev. Jeremiah Wright. You'll hear the argument from every pundit, you'll hear it from your liberal friends, and you'll hear it from Obama himself. Let's talk about real issues like foreign policy or energy independence, they'll say, we've got bigger concerns than this stuff which happened so long ago.
Don't fall into that trap, either.
Don't be satisfied with people wanting to make this race about "bigger issues." When it comes to the presidency, there is NO bigger issue than judgment. Judgment underlies everything from foreign policy to domestic issues to the size and role of government to judicial appointments and more. If the president of the United States of America has spent the vast majority of his ideologically formative years surrounded by corrupt businessmen, rabid racists, unapologetic Marxists and people who just outright dislike America, those very instincts will be present in every single decision made on each and every level.
Barack Obama needs to be asked why he continues to associate and break bread with people who detest the America that we love. He needs to be asked why those people, even ones he may not know, even ones like Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are supporting him and rooting for him to be successful on the fourth of November. On page 100 of his bestselling memoir, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Barack Obama wrote the following:
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.
These people don't search him out, he goes to them. Why does he run to these people? Why does he feel so comfortable among those who despise the power and success of this nation and everything for which She stands? After all, he married a woman who admitted that she was proud of America for the first time only when America showed success to her husband, he flocked to people like Ayers and Dohrn and Wright and Fr. Michael Pfleger, people who blame America for the world's ills and preach hate and perform acts of violence in some twisted attempt at inspiring unity and fostering peace. Why?
America is only seven years removed from the worst attack on our country since Pearl Harbor and the worst terrorist attack on our soil in American history, and yet the wounds have somehow healed so completely that we're going to freely elect a man of questionable character who was mentored by a man--a bomber--who glowingly boasts of his own terrorist acts?
If Sen. John McCain had associated with fascists, with neo-Nazis, with bombers like Eric Robert Rudolph and racists like David Duke, such relationships would be an absolute disqualifier. The New York Times and Washington Post and Los Angeles Times and MSNBC would absolutely skewer him, claiming that he didn't have America and Americans at heart and could not possibly serve as president. Yet, with Barack Obama and his Christmas card list of radicals, there is nary a word until the opposing candidate himself brings it up and the media outlets have no choice.
Perhaps this is the way to continue hammering Barack Obama on his associations with these people, the way to most effectively hammer home to American voters the questionable nature of his character. Flood the television sets and watercoolers and train stations and classrooms from coast-to-coast with everything known about William Ayers and, when the gnat-like attention span of the American public wanes because of exhausting 24-hour news cycles and tempting distractions like Dancing with the Stars or Grey's Anatomy or the World Series, release the floodgates and drown everyone once again with everything we know about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, followed by Tony Rezko, Frank Marshall Davis, Rashid Khalidi, Khalid al-Mansour and more.
Ladies and gentlemen, the man standing in our midst, the one asking for your trust and begging for your vote, is not who he says he is. By concealing the nature of his ideological idiosyncrasies, Barack Obama has perpetrated a fraud against the American voting public, and it is about time that his own chickens come home to roost.
If all else fails for Barack Obama, the American voting public will hear those on the political left argue that this election should be about so-called "real issues" and not about people like William Ayers, just as Obama supporters argued that the primary should have been about more than just Rev. Jeremiah Wright. You'll hear the argument from every pundit, you'll hear it from your liberal friends, and you'll hear it from Obama himself. Let's talk about real issues like foreign policy or energy independence, they'll say, we've got bigger concerns than this stuff which happened so long ago.
Don't fall into that trap, either.
Don't be satisfied with people wanting to make this race about "bigger issues." When it comes to the presidency, there is NO bigger issue than judgment. Judgment underlies everything from foreign policy to domestic issues to the size and role of government to judicial appointments and more. If the president of the United States of America has spent the vast majority of his ideologically formative years surrounded by corrupt businessmen, rabid racists, unapologetic Marxists and people who just outright dislike America, those very instincts will be present in every single decision made on each and every level.
Barack Obama needs to be asked why he continues to associate and break bread with people who detest the America that we love. He needs to be asked why those people, even ones he may not know, even ones like Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are supporting him and rooting for him to be successful on the fourth of November. On page 100 of his bestselling memoir, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Barack Obama wrote the following:
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.
These people don't search him out, he goes to them. Why does he run to these people? Why does he feel so comfortable among those who despise the power and success of this nation and everything for which She stands? After all, he married a woman who admitted that she was proud of America for the first time only when America showed success to her husband, he flocked to people like Ayers and Dohrn and Wright and Fr. Michael Pfleger, people who blame America for the world's ills and preach hate and perform acts of violence in some twisted attempt at inspiring unity and fostering peace. Why?
America is only seven years removed from the worst attack on our country since Pearl Harbor and the worst terrorist attack on our soil in American history, and yet the wounds have somehow healed so completely that we're going to freely elect a man of questionable character who was mentored by a man--a bomber--who glowingly boasts of his own terrorist acts?
If Sen. John McCain had associated with fascists, with neo-Nazis, with bombers like Eric Robert Rudolph and racists like David Duke, such relationships would be an absolute disqualifier. The New York Times and Washington Post and Los Angeles Times and MSNBC would absolutely skewer him, claiming that he didn't have America and Americans at heart and could not possibly serve as president. Yet, with Barack Obama and his Christmas card list of radicals, there is nary a word until the opposing candidate himself brings it up and the media outlets have no choice.
Perhaps this is the way to continue hammering Barack Obama on his associations with these people, the way to most effectively hammer home to American voters the questionable nature of his character. Flood the television sets and watercoolers and train stations and classrooms from coast-to-coast with everything known about William Ayers and, when the gnat-like attention span of the American public wanes because of exhausting 24-hour news cycles and tempting distractions like Dancing with the Stars or Grey's Anatomy or the World Series, release the floodgates and drown everyone once again with everything we know about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, followed by Tony Rezko, Frank Marshall Davis, Rashid Khalidi, Khalid al-Mansour and more.
Ladies and gentlemen, the man standing in our midst, the one asking for your trust and begging for your vote, is not who he says he is. By concealing the nature of his ideological idiosyncrasies, Barack Obama has perpetrated a fraud against the American voting public, and it is about time that his own chickens come home to roost.
