October 14, 2008

Why Won't Obama Release The Names Of His Campaign Donors?

From The Hill:

The Obama campaign has failed to release the names of donors responsible for approximately half of his campaign’s $426.9 million: those
who have contributed less than $200.

In addition, press reports allege Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has accepted illegal online campaign contributions from this category of donors, which include funds allegedly donated by foreign nationals.

The Obama campaign appears to be selectively complying with campaign finance laws. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) should immediately investigate allegations of foreign campaign contributions made to the Obama campaign possibly corrupting this presidential election.

What... you thought those Palestinian phone banks were really calling long distance?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:34 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Obama's Promise to His ACORN Friends

Isn't it encouraging to know that Obama has promised to have ACORN help engineer his Presidential agenda?

More, from Jennifer Rubin:

It is almost inconceivable that Barack Obama should not have been grilled on this –either by his opponent or the media. (The latter is just beginning to cover the story.) Obama’s ties are deep and extensive with an organization that embraces goals and tactics well outside the political mainstream and that has engaged in a pattern of illegal activity usually seen only in RICO indictments. ACORN’s present involvement in coast-to-coast fraud is jaw-dropping and should raise the issue as to whether an Obama Justice Department would vigorously investigate and, if warranted, prosecute this entity and all involved.(A helpful compilation of ACORN’s suspect activities is here.) Put simply, Obama worked for and helped funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to a fraud-infested, corrupt organization and has yet to explain himself, let alone apologize for the same.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:20 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Obama Funneled Grant Money to Afrocentric Anti-American Extremists

Stanley Kurtz has been digging through the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and has discovered that the group created and ram-rodded by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and fronted by Barack Obama was funneling grant money to anti-American afro-centric extremist groups filled with men just like Barack Obama's racist minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright—and as a matter of fact, some of those men spoke at Wright's Church during the time Barack Obama attended.

How culpable is Obama is funneling money to these racist indoctrination efforts?

Given the precedent of his earlier responses on Ayers and Wright, Obama might be inclined to deny personal knowledge of the educational philosophy he was so generously funding. Such a denial would not be convincing. For one thing, we have evidence that in 1995, the same year Obama assumed control of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he publicly rejected "the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation," a stance that clearly resonates with both Wright and Carruthers. (See "No Liberation."

And as noted, Wright had invited Carruthers, Hilliard, and like-minded thinkers to address his Trinity congregants. Wright likes to tick off his connections to these prominent Afrocentrists in sermons, and Obama would surely have heard of them. Reading over SSAVC’s Annenberg proposals, Obama could hardly be ignorant of what they were about. And if by some chance Obama overlooked Hilliard’s or Carruthers’s names, SSAVC’s proposals are filled with references to "rites of passage" and "Ptahhotep," dead giveaways for the anti-American and separatist ideological concoction favored by SSAVC.

We know that Obama did read the proposals. Annenberg documents show him commenting on proposal quality. And especially after 1995, when concerns over self-dealing and conflicts of interest forced the Ayers-headed "Collaborative" to distance itself from monetary issues, all funding decisions fell to Obama and the board. Significantly, there was dissent within the board. One business leader and experienced grant-smith characterized the quality of most Annenberg proposals as "awful." (See "The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: The First Three Years," p. 19.) Yet Obama and his very small and divided board kept the money flowing to ideologically extremist groups like the South Shore African Village Collaborative, instead of organizations focused on traditional educational achievement.

So Barack Obama either supported funding the racist indoctrination of schoolchildren, or is grossly incompetent as an executive, or both.

This is part of a frankly disturbing pattern of behavior from the man who would be President.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:24 AM | Comments (39) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 13, 2008

Obama Mentor Frank Marshall Davis an Admitted Child Rapist

Somehow I missed this when it was published in August in the U.K. Telegraph:

Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's half-sister, told the Associated Press recently that her grandfather had seen Mr Davis was a "point of connection, a bridge if you will, to the larger African-American experience for my brother".

In his memoir, Mr Obama recounts how he visited Mr Davis on several occasions, apparently at junctures when he was grappling with racial issues, to seek his counsel. At one point in 1979 Mr Davis described university as "an advanced degree in compromise" that was designed to keep blacks in their place.

Mr Obama quoted him as saying: "Leaving your race at the door. Leaving your people behind. Understand something, boy. You're not going to college to get educated. You’re going there to get trained."

He added that "they'll tank on your chain and let you know that you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you're a nigger just the same."

It has also been established that Mr Davis, who divorced in 1970, was the author of a hard-core pornographic autobiography published in San Diego in 1968 by Greenleaf Classics under the pseudonym Bob Greene.

In a surviving portion of an autobiographical manuscript, Mr Davis confirms that he was the author of Sex Rebel: Black after a reader had noticed the "similarities in style and phraseology" between the pornographic work and his poetry.

"I could not then truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine." In the introduction to Sex Rebel, Mr Davis (writing as Greene) explains that although he has "changed names and identities…all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences".

He stated that "under certain circumstances I am bisexual" and that he was "a voyeur and an exhibitionist" who was "occasionally mildly interested in sado-masochism", adding: "I have often wished I had two penises to enjoy simultaneously the double – but different – sensations of oral and genital copulation."

The book, which closely tracks Mr Davis's life in Chicago and Hawaii and the fact that his first wife was black and his second white, describes in lurid detail a series of shockingly sordid sexual encounters, often involving group sex.

One chapter concerns the seduction by Mr Davis and his first wife of a 13-year-old girl called Anne. Mr Davis wrote that it was the girl who had suggested he had sex with her. "I'm not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually I'd rather not bed a babe under 20.

"But there are exceptions. I didn't want to disappoint the trusting child. At her still-impressionistic age, a rejection might be traumatic, could even cripple her sexually for life."

He then described how he and his wife would have sex with the girl. "Anne came up many times the next several weeks, her aunt thinking she was in good hands. Actually she was.

"She obtained a course in practical sex from experienced and considerate practitioners rather than from ignorant insensitive neophytes….I think we did her a favour, although the pleasure was mutual."

On other occasions, Mr Davis would cruise in Hawaii parks looking for couples or female tourists to have sex with. He derived sexual gratification from bondage, simulated rape and being flogged and urinated on.

I only found this Telegraph story after a new commenter named "Krys" dumped the text of this current National Enquirer story in the comments of an unrelated post.

This story has been known by the U.S. media for almost two months now, but I can find no evidence that any network or cable television news outlet, newspaper, syndicate, or magazine has reported on this. Does anyone believe for one second that if John McCain or Sarah Palin were mentored by an self-admitted child rapist and general pervert that it wouldn't be the singular focus of multiple news cycles, questioning how such a relationship was damage their delicate and emerging psychologies, rendering them too unreliable for the Presidency, or perhaps darkly suggesting that the candidate might have been abused by such a mentor themselves?

Instead, they buried the story, until once again the Enquirer shows itself to be the only U.S news organization with enough integrity to report a story detrimental to a Democratic Presidential candidate.

That doesn't mean the Enquirer has suddenly become more credible. It just serves to show you how partisan and unreliable the American news media is today.

Barack Obama's list of known mentors now includes child rapists ("Uncle Frank" Marshall), racists (Rev. Jeremiah Wright) and terrorists (Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn).

When is someone going to question how these associations must have warped Obama's views and render him unstable, and unsuitable for the Presidency?

Update: Duncan Black, apparently not the sharpest child-safe pumpkin-carving tool in the liberal drawer, deliberately misrepresents or ignorantly misreads this post to declare that I've decided "a rumor that Obama as a young child may have been (as in, in his fapping imagination) molested disqualifies him from being president."

I said nothing of the sort.

In linking the U.K. version of the story first told in August, I noted that the U.S. media has buried this story for almost two months, and that had there been a similar pervert close to the McCain or Palin families, the media would have used it against the candidate. I also noted that Davis was yet another of Barack Obama's mentors that has a radical past, including terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, and his racist mentor minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

At no point do I state that Obama was molested, or even may have been molested. Frankly, the thought never crossed my mind.

Black owes me an apology, though it remains to be seen if he has the integrity to issue one.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:10 PM | Comments (60) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Does it strike anyone else as kind of pathetic that the British media knows more about the man that's likely. . .unfortunately. . .about to be elected President of the United States than the American media?

Well, more than the American media lets US know, anyway.

Someone save me a good seat in re-programming class, will you?

Posted by: TheGonz at October 13, 2008 02:26 PM (HoHg+)

2
Uh, take a real good look at a picture of Frank and a pic of Barack Sr. and then another of Barack Jr candidate for President.

Is Uncle Frank the kinda guy who would have scruples about hitting on his buddy's granddaughter?

"Uncle Frank" uh, yeah, sure.

Posted by: Rocky's Pal at October 13, 2008 02:59 PM (ywSvi)

3 Well, the Brits, knowing all this, still prefer Obama, so... there's no surprises there.

Meanwhile, just mentioning this guy Davis and his association with Obaaa!ma is just full.of.hate. Hate! How dare anyone quote the British media? Buncha Anglo-supremists around here.

)

Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at October 13, 2008 03:25 PM (eDdOG)

4 The thing is that this was a childhood association -- one that was set up by his grandfather. Although this glues together some pieces of the puzzle, I don't think Obama's association with FMD should be put on the "bad choices" pile like Ayers. It should be on the "creepy" and "daddy issues" piles.

The bigger story is the media bias story. Why have we not had one TV documentary on "Who is Frank Marshall Davis?"

Posted by: AmishDude at October 13, 2008 03:59 PM (T0NGe)

5 What a bunch of nice people old Barack hangs out with.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at October 13, 2008 04:20 PM (vuXJQ)

6 So when I went to college I was being trained to be a "good n*gger?"

Damn. How about all the other white guys?

People like Davis are so blind that it makes them stupid. Like all conspiracists, every tiny detail in the universe is another piece in the grand puzzle. A sparrow farts, and it's irrefutable proof of racism. Is he where Obama learned his infinite sense of self, his insatiable narcssissm?

Posted by: Steve Skubinna at October 13, 2008 04:26 PM (Vcyz0)

7 It continues to amaze me how many times the National Enquirer gets stories right, and then people report on their accurate story by saying 'The National Enquirer is not credible source.'

Posted by: Kevin at October 13, 2008 05:41 PM (KO6dP)

8 "This isn't the Frank Marshall Davis I knew."

Posted by: Obama's Wall Street Contributions at October 13, 2008 06:00 PM (WfSvm)

9 Well, The One did say he was different from all those other presidents on the currency. I do not recall Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, or Grant having their own pedophile racial awareness guide.

Son of a Hippie, mentored by Davis about how to be "authentic" in his racial attitudes, associates with Angry Left folks, runs as a Deocratic Socialist and wants to "spread the wealth around". Sounds like a veritable flag and apple pie candidate to me.

Posted by: Teleprompter Messiah at October 13, 2008 06:23 PM (+L1YR)

10 This story borders on being sick!!

I've known poets, authors and the like, and some of them were really weird -- my wife and I kept them at arms length. Barak Obama was at a young and impressionable age when these encounters occurred, but I was a university graduate student (UC Berkeley) when my encounters occurred. At his age Obama didn't know any better !!!

Obama's problem is that he has virtually no ability to go back and rethink his past encounters with stalinist apparachiks like Frank Marshall Davis (let's include Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn even though they claim that they have no love for stalinism -- baloney -- stalinism is written all over their faces!!!)

Obama's problem is with a fundamental quantity called the truth, something his radical mentors considered malleable at best. Obama can't come clean about his involvement with non-repentant terrorists Ayers and Dohrn. He refuses to come clean about his involvement with the leftist blackshirts who go by the name of Acorn, and he refuses to come clean about his involvement with the most corrupt political machine in America run by Chicago mayor Richard Daley.

Those who vote for Stalinbama vote out of a sense complete denial of the facts that are now coming to the surface, no thanks to the US MSM Pravda.

Posted by: Mescalero at October 13, 2008 11:10 PM (3Cu0P)

11 Nearly all of Obama's formative relations were with pathological individuals and toxic ideas.

Frank Marshall Davis eagerly indulged himself with a 13-year-old girl in his charge. He had wide-ranging sexual appetites without scruples, and describes himself as bisexual.

Is there any reason to believe he would have restrained himself from indulging in a handsome teenaged boy in his charge?

For nearly two decades the Catholic church hemorrhaged hundreds of millions of dollars on the premise that sexual predation by grown men on teenaged boys permanently damages those individuals. The media reveled. They damned the church for willful blindness and covering up.

But of course, this would be different.

Posted by: lyle at October 14, 2008 03:50 AM (aiizS)

12 When you look at a young man's 'father figures', you see his role models. You see who he really is.

Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers are morally unhealthy human beings. They molded Barack's character. They informed his worldview. They nurtured him on their poisonous ideologies. There's no sign that he ever rebelled, or even sought out less contemptible exemplars.

On the outside, Barack may be smooth and sonorous. On the inside, he is a toxic stew of Davis, Wright, and Ayers.

Posted by: lyle at October 14, 2008 04:11 AM (aiizS)

13 On the inside, he is a toxic stew of Davis, Wright, and Ayers.

Evidence? For many years he's led a public life and has appeared calm and decent. Many wonderful people came from broken and miserable homes, or had parents who were felons or even Nazis. It is a testament to the human spirit and the power of love that a person can transcend their environment and grow to be a splendid person. To hear you call a decent man a "toxic stew" is appalling and totally unfair. And deeply un-Christian. Shame.

Posted by: richard at October 14, 2008 05:26 AM (Ri06X)

14 richard,

Evidence?

His behavior.

Did he adopt Frank Marshall Davis' worldview? Apparently so. In his memoir, he reveres the despicable 'Frank' and quotes him approvingly.

Did he adopt Bill Ayers' worldview? Yes, he did. Obama joined Ayers on the Woods Fund. Ayers made him chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Obama funded Ayers and his radical associates via the CAC. They worked together on radical education policy and squandered 160 million dollars together. Obama's first political fundraiser was hosted by Bill Ayers. He only distanced himself when it became politically necessary.

Did he adopt Jeremiah Wright's worldview? Yes, he did. According to Obama, he sought out a spiritual mentor and a church where he felt at home. He found both at Trinity. For twenty years he sat in the pew as his 'pastor' spewed anti-American, white-hating filth. Obama brought his wife and kids. The only religion he ever exposed his children to was Marxism with a thin veneer of religion. Would he have done so if he didn't agree with it?

Have you heard the adage, "You know a man by the company he keeps"? How about "Birds of a feather flock together"?

That's evidence.

"Appeared calm and decent" isn't evidence. It's weak-minded bullshit.

Shove your ignorance and pretentious fake-Christian piety back up the hole they came from.

Posted by: lyle at October 14, 2008 06:04 AM (aiizS)

15 Richard:

"Those, then, are friends to whom the same things are good and evil; and those who are, moreover, friendly or unfriendly to the same people; for in that case they must have the same wishes, and thus by wishing for each other what they wish for themselves, they show themselves each other's friends." (Aristotle, Rhetoric, Book II, Chapter)

Apply that to the people that Senator Obama has hung around with most of his adult life.

Or, you can show yourself to be a partisan lefty hack and denounce Aristotle as a racist.

Your move.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2008 07:13 AM (kbd0j)

16 In addition to his acceptance of the worldviews of the various thugs and perverts above, you also have OBama's self-proclaimed "moral compass," the race-bating lynching advocate, anti-Semite, and Louis Farrakhan fan Father Michael Pfleger, who has been Obama's mentor of 22 years.

Among Obama's acts, you can look to his work for the corrupt ACORN as a trainer and his recent attempt to slip them more than $800,000 in money through a front group, suspected millions in illegal foreign contributions, add to that Obama's attempt to subvert the Constitution by corrupting legal scholarship in an effort to run a sophisticated con on the U.S. Supreme Court, and his morally vacant support for infanticide.

Richard asks for evidence that Obama is psychologically a "toxic stew."

What more do you require, for his to be caught in bed with a live boy or dead girl? Both?

The men he sought out as mentors is evidence of Obama's internal issues. The three men who have been constants the longest in his life have been a terrorist (Ayers, at least 21 years, perhaps as long as 27 if they met when Obama was at Columbia), a cult-leading racist (Wright 21 years), and the aforementioned Pfleger.

He chose as his spouse someone who has racial inferiority issues severe enough she tries to work through them in her thesis, but obviously failed, as she was only able to recently become proud of her country as a grown woman... and only then because of a personal benefit afforded to her husband, suggesting her pride was merely bought.

Barack Obama's mind must provide for one hell of a couch trip, and the forces that made him no doubt shaped him into an excellent cautionary tale.

But what I find particularly interesting that the same people on the left who so hate George W. Bush for being an "extremist" look at the extremism that shaped Barack Obama, and twist that in their own minds to be a good thing.

If he manages to win the White House, the various pathologies imparted into him through this lifelong mentoring of racists, terrorists, radicals, sexual deviants and various flavors of communist and socialist extremists will only sharpen in the pressure cooker of the Presidency, and he will make increasing bad decisions.

We one thought Barack Obama might be the second coming of Jimmy Carter, but that was before we began to get a better understanding of the forces that shaped him.

You might be wiling to endanger your children's future by trusting that a man with such a deviant background can overcome a lifetime of corrupting anti-American influences, but I can't.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 14, 2008 07:36 AM (HcgFD)

17 ichard,

Evidence?

His behavior.

Did he adopt Frank Marshall Davis' worldview? Apparently so. In his memoir, he reveres the despicable 'Frank' and quotes him approvingly.

You have no evidence Obama was molested by "Frank." He was ten years old. You realize how nuts this sounds?

Yankee, about "the extremism that shaped Barack Obama" - all I ask is, what are you talking about? How do you know this is what shaped him? How do you know about other, nourishing and loving people he knew who might have shaped him? It is all conjecture, what you want to believe, but there is no proof. It is scary and also dangerous, to build up such strong hatred against a man all based on association, when you have no idea how closely he was even associated with these people and what the effect of that association was. He's been in the public eye for four years (and actually far longer). How has he managed to hide even the faintest trace of this horrible toxic stew? Do you believe once he's sworn it it will pop out like in Alien? With all due respect, that is plain looney. You can find associations and experience in everyone's life and come up with reasons why anyone would be unfit for power. But it's not based on any reality except that of your own making. In other words, it's pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Posted by: richard at October 14, 2008 08:06 AM (Ri06X)

18 richard,

How deep in denial would you like to remain? Barack Obama's life has been defined by serial associations with anti-American left-wing extremists. I certainly hope that the freshman Senator has had nourishing and loving people and his life, but that does not in any way excuse the fact that Barack Obama chose as his mentors the most extreme elements of the American left. He has not hidden "even the faintest trace"--obviously, we're talking about it now, and in some detail, and his supporters are doing their level best to suppress discussion of these troubling extremes that make up his record.

Granted, you and your fellow apologists have done all you can to make that discussion nearly impossible by chanting "racist!" anytime anyone has had the temerity to point out these proven and problematic associations, but that attempt to stifle debate doesn't make his extremist views and choice of mentors any less real.

Nothing is "popping out," instead, it's been trickling out over the past year, story by story, as a handful of reporters with intellectual integrity have sought to vet the candidate that most of the media would rather anoint than explore.

You do make one valid point that you can come up with reasons that anyone would be unfit for command if you try hard enough, but the fact of the matter is that extremism of association and deed are the constant in Barack Obama's life, and normal American views and associations are far fewer and farther between, and tainted.

I can understand how someone such as yourself may so swept up in the celebrity of Obama and the firsts he represents that you would will upon him suitability if you could, but the simple fact of the matter is that Barack Obama has a lifetime of associations with extremists, some of which are dubious legally and morally, and lacks any measurable leadership experience or any record of being able to work substantively on matters that require bi-partisanship.

You've spent considerable energy trying to minimize Barack Obama's decades of associations with racists, terrorists, radicals, and a child rapist, but you haven't done anything to examine or explain those associations.

Perhaps, sir, it is time you stop for a moment and try to understand why you can't bring yourself to face what made Obama head-on.

Like many Obama supporters, I suspect you'd rather minimize his problematic associations and positions than explore them, because if you look too closely, you'll find out that you can in no way support him, either.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 14, 2008 08:29 AM (HcgFD)

19 richard,

There's plenty of evidence of long-term toxic associations. Perhaps you could point to an instance where he refused or rebelled or rose above those associations.

He prospered within one of the most corrupt political machines in the United States. Did he ever denounce or protest the corruption? Perhaps you could ask criminal slumlord and close Obama associate Tony Rezko. Rezko helped Obama buy property, and Obama directed millions in state funds to Rezko. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Perhaps you can point to the moment when an indignant Obama confronted his racist pastor?

Or a moment when he told his ACORN friends, 'Vote fraud just isn't right.'

Or the time when he said to Bill Ayers, 'I won't have anything to do with a man who engaged in acts of terror against my country.'

Or when he turned to Bernadine Dohrn and said, 'How on earth could you celebrate the Tate-Lobianco murders?'

Here's a lesson in common sense. You know a man by the company he keeps. Show me an example where Barack Obama demonstrated that he wasn't like the people he has chosen as his friends.

Posted by: lyle at October 14, 2008 08:32 AM (aiizS)

20 Lyly, you've really drunk the Kool Aid. How do you know what Obama said to Wright or to Acorn? All innuendo, all smoke - and where there's smoke, surely there's fire. McCain spent some of his impressionable years holed up in the Hanoi Hilton surrounded by communists. Maybe that rubbed off on him, too, and makes him unfit for office. But only a deranged fool would ever say something like that, because McCain has proved he's a decent man (until recently), a caring man and a rational man. We must form our judgments on what IS, on what a man actually does and says and stands for, and not on what our inner demons whisper to us.

Posted by: richard at October 14, 2008 09:22 AM (Ri06X)

21 richard,

I didn't think my point was so difficult to understand. We know for a fact that Obama has chosen these associations for his entire adult life. He only ditched them when they conflicted with his self-interest.

Can you try real hard and think of a way in which Obama's chosen friends and mentors are different from McCain's wartime captors?

Come on, think. Really, really hard.

Posted by: lyle at October 14, 2008 09:58 AM (aiizS)

22 I'm reading Dreams From My Father, and I am a Democrat.

And let me tell you, "Frank" is not glamourized, and his thinking is thinking Obama grows to reject over time.

We see many sides of people over time, but never all of them. In one important anecdote, Frank talks about the distance between his friend, Barack's white grandfather, and himself, suggesting that there are elements to his personality that Frank hid from him.

In terms of plausibility, let's sit down for a second and consider this: Obama's judgment, being questioned her, would be that of a boy, who was being brought around by his Grandfather to different places. What kind of ludicrous notion is it for a kid like Barack Obama to determine the future effect on his political campaign nearly forty years hence?

The Republicans are demanding superhuman powers of foresight and precognition here. And why not? Why bother to play a fair game if winning is what matters most?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 14, 2008 11:59 AM (nlIIc)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Road to Hell

Michael Yon's latest dispatchfrom Afghanistan is posted, in which he meets with Afghan fighters, and obtains clues about those fighters that ambushed and killed ten French soldiers in August.

As always, Yon's reporting is reader-funded, so if you like his reporting, please consider contributing.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:59 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Obama Knew Of Ayers' Terrorist Past When?

The left keeps wanting us to ignore Barack Obama's ties to domestic terrorists (plural) Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. That is understandable, even if we chose to buy the explanation offered up by Obama himself that he shouldn't be held responsible for attacks by the Weathermen that occurred when he was eight.

I agree. Barack Obama shouldn't be held responsible for domestic terror attacks that took place in America when Barack Obama was an eight-year-old student in an Indonesian school half a world away.

What Obama knew at eight isn't relevant.

What he knew at 20 is.

The Weathermen and the Black Liberation Army murdered police officers and a Brinks armored car guard just 22 miles from Obama's apartment in New York when Obama was 20 years old at Columbia University.

Fake IDs used to rent the vehicles used in the robbery were tied to the store that Ayer's wife and Weathermen co-founder Bernadine Dohrn worked in at the time, and she went to jail for seven months for refusing to testify about her role to the grand jury.

Obama and Ayers developed a long and radical partnership in Chicago afterward.

How long has Barack Obama know Bill Ayers was a terrorist?

A lot longer than he's willing to admit.

Update: Rick links in the "just a guy in my neighborhood" video at Brutally Honest where Hillary Clinton rips into the Obama-Ayers relationship.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:49 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 11, 2008

The Tasergate Wet Fart

So much grunting, twisting, and screaming, and so little to show for it:

Democratic state senator and staunch Barack Obama supporter Hollis French of Alaska boasted in early September that he would provide an "October Surprise" which would upset the McCain-Palin campaign. Indeed, he originally planned to time it for October 31, four days before the election, for maximum impact, until other legislators forced him to abandon that particular strategy.

Today, however, in an episode of political theater that would make Josef Stalin blush, French gave it his very best shot: The investigator he hired and directed, Steve Branchflower, has labored mightily and given birth to a bloated and redundant 263-page report which boils down, for purposes of the ongoing presidential campaign, to two paragraphs that completely contradict one another. And the one of them that's unfavorable ignores the most important — indeed conclusive — evidence on point, but goes on to provide Branchflower's guess as to whether Gov. Palin has done anything improper.

Please understand this, if you take nothing else away from reading this post: The Branchflower Report is a series of guess and insupportable conclusions drawn by exactly one guy, and it hasn't been approved or adopted or endorsed by so much as a single sub-committee of the Alaska Legislature, much less any kind of commission, court, jury, or other proper adjudicatory body. It contains no new bombshells in terms of factual revelations. Rather, it's just Steve Branchflower's opinion — after being hired and directed by one of Gov. Palin's most vocal opponents and one of Alaska's staunchest Obama supporters — that he thinks Gov. Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both (a) the complete right to perform and (b) other very good reasons to perform.

It's the funniest kangaroo court I've seen in years.

Alaska Democrats hell-bent on lynching Sarah Palin for Dear Leader Obama all but promised a guilty verdict before their investigation into Tasergate began, but the best they could come up with was a unilateral fact-free declaration that amounts to "Sarah Palin abused power because I was hired to find that Sarah Palin abused her power, even though my own report contradicts that. BUGS! BUGS! BUGS!!!"

I'm just trying to figures out who the biggest fools are here:

Hollis French, the Alaska Democrat and Obama supporter that promised an "October Surprise,"only to—surprise!—come up with a self-contradicting report;

And somehow, I have a feeling they'll continue to try to convince us that they represent something approximating truth, which may be the funniest thing of all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:00 AM | Comments (52) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 10, 2008

PUMA Rumor: Obama, Top Democrats Under Cloud of RICO Investigation

A post yesterday on pro-Hillary HillBuzz claims that a contributer spoke with someone in the Chicago court system that a team of FBI investigators in ten states are putting together a RICO case for U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. They are claiming that alleged undocumented contributions to the Obama campaign could potentially ensnare ACORN and, well, just about every Democrat they don't like.

If everything rumored here is true, it looks like David Axelrod, Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, SoetorObama himself, and possibly even Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were all involved, together, in massive RICO violations, and thus federal fraud, if the DNC and party leadership knew what the SoetorObama campaign and ACORN were up to and allowed it to proceed. Knowledge of federal crimes being committed makes all parties accessories to those crimes — and part of the conspiracy to defraud the public.

As I've never been one to let a rumor idle if it can easily be proven or quashed, I went to the source and shot an email to Randall Samborn, Assistant US Attorney and Public Information Officer for the U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Illinois.

I asked Mr. Samborn three simple questions.

• Can you confirm or deny that ACORN is the target of a RICO investigation?
• Are any elected government officials under investigation?
• Is any current poltical candidate, staff member or volunteer associated with the Barack Obama Presidential campaign under investigation?

Unfortunately, this was nor a rumor Mr. Samborn could quash, responding via email, "We do not confirm or deny the existence of any investigation - therfore, we decline comment and I am unable to answer any of your questions."

And, of course, since those in a position to know if there is an investigation are precisely the people who can't talk about it, we'll get a continued trickle of rumors.

Kinda like this.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:22 PM | Comments (40) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Battleground State of Mind

I just dropped by my local pawn shop to get rid of some items around the house that were not longer needed, and found them to be extremely busy.

The high level of traffic in the shop wasn't all the surprising considering this economy Congressional Democrats engineered, but what was surprising is why people were there.

Other than myself, it doesn't appear anyone was there to pawn unwanted things.

Of the 12 people in the shop when I was there, the 11 others were all looking at firearms. A CZ-58 and an AK-47 variant were on the counter in front of one pair of customers. An off-duty sheriff and his friend were picking up what I think was a DPMS LR-308 complete with scope and bipod. Another guy was looking at a used Polytech M-14, and the remainder were looking at handguns... mostly Glocks and CZ-75s.

I overheard one of the guys behind the gun counter say that gun sales among the shops in the area were up about 35-percent. Later, when he wasn't as busy, I asked him why he thought that was. His answer was simple, and perhaps predictable.

"Barack."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:41 PM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 09, 2008

The Weather Underground Documentary Trailer 2002

So this documentary on the Weathermen came out in 2002, following the 1988 hit Running on Empty, that was based on the life of Bernadine Dohrn.

So why is it that Barack Obama says that the last time he associated with Bill Ayers was 2005?

Update:

Via "mo1962" in the comments, the full documentary.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:41 PM | Comments (50) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Ayers-Obama Media Primer

The Weathermen were not a 1960s group.
The Weathermen formed in 1969, declared war on "AmeriKKKa" (yes, that is where the popular spelling you hear in the rants of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and on left-wing political blogs comes from) in 1970, and carried out a string of attacks that finally ended with the arrests of the final remaining Weathermen, now called the May 19 Communist Movement, in 1985. One remaining Weatherman, Elizabeth Duke, is still a fugitive from the FBI and is considered armed and dangerous.

Calling the Weathermen a 60s terrorist group, when it did almost all of its bombing in the 1970s and 1980s, is as intellectually honest as calling Duran Duran a 50s rock and roll band because Simon Le Bon was born in 1958.

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn are domestic terrorists.
They not an "anti-war activists" nor "radicals." Activists and radicals organize protests and sit-ins and harass elected officials.

A person that uses a bomb instead of a ballot is a terrorist. A person that leads a group of individuals that likes to use bombs instead of ballets is a terrorist leader. As this particular group of terrorists waged war against their own country, they are called domestic terrorists.

Contrary to a meme being pushed by interested parties, the Weather Underground killed innocent people.
Brian V. McDonnell an officer with the San Francisco Police, was ripped apart by shrapnel Feb 16, 1970. He succumbed to his injuries two days later. Officer Robert Fogarty was permanently injured in the same blast. FBI mole Larry Grathwohl says Bill Ayers built the bomb, and that Bernadine Dohrn placed it on the station window ledge. Nyack, NY Police Officer Waverly Brown and Sergeant Ed O'Grady, along with Brinks guard Peter Paige, were killed in an armored car robbery that was a joint operation between the Weather Underground and elements of the Black Liberation Army in 1981.

In addition to their successful homicide bombings, the Weather Underground failed in several attempts at mass murder.
On March 6, 1970, a pipe-bomb being constructed in a Greenwich Village townhouse detonated, killing three Weathermen and causing two others to flee. Recovered amid the rumble were four 12" dynamite-filled pipe-bombs and several fused eight-stick bundles of dynamite that had been destined for a non-commissioned officers dance that night at Fort Dix, NJ, targeting American soldiers and their civilian dates. The attack would likely have been the worst terrorist attack on American soil prior to Timothy McVeigh's attack in Oklahoma City.

Lesser known mass murder attempts of the Weathermen that same year included the attempted bombing of the Detroit Police Officers' Association, which Ayers wanted to occur when the building was fully occupied. An FBI mole within the Weathermen, Larry Grathwohl tipped police. A 13-stick bundle of dynamite was recovered and defused. A separate bombing targeting Detroit police foiled by Grathwohl involved 2 bombs, using 44 sticks of dynamite.

In 1984, Weathermen Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans were arrested while transporting 740 pounds of explosives and a cache of almost two dozen weapons, including a submachine gun.

Barack Obama and Bill Ayers do not cross paths casually, but have a lucrative multi-decade relationship.
Barack Obama and Bill Ayers met no later than 1987, where the worked together in the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools. There is some speculation that Ayers and Obama may have met even earlier in New York, perhaps as far back as 1984, but that connection hasn't been firmly established.

Ayers was instrumental in forming the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and arranged for Obama to be chairman of the Board of Directors over more qualified Board members. Obama returned the favor by funneling more than a million dollars in grants to Ayers' Small School Workshop. Obama and Ayers served together for years on the Board of Directors of the Woods Fund. Obama was also a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, which may have influenced several grants made to Ayers.

Barack Obama "didn't know the history" of Bill Ayers' and Bernadine Dohrn's terrorist past when he kicked off his political career in their home in 1995.
Barack Obama has known Bill Ayers at least since 1987, and perhaps as far back as 1983-84. Bernardine Dohrn, once publicly labeled "the most dangerous woman in America" by none other than J. Edgar Hoover, was also well known as the inspiration for the 1988 movie Running on Empty. Subtle terrorists they were not.

Both Ayers and Dohrn were very well known throughout Chicago for their role in the "Days of Rage" riots and their terrorist leadership, and were minor celebrities among the radical leftist community Ayers, Dohrn, and Obama shared in Hyde Park.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:28 PM | Comments (51) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 1987?

Brinks robbery/murders in 1981?

Only six years difference.

Quite a bit different than claiming a 9 year olds ignorance.....

Posted by: SouthernRoots at October 09, 2008 09:47 PM (EsOdX)

2 It's interesting when you put it together: Acorn. Subprime Meltdown. Bogus loans given to people who could never pay it back. Banks teetering on the edge with unstable loan portfolios. Hedge funds using short selling to challenge the valuation.

And George Soros behind it all, from the funding of Acorn, the promotion of Obama and the run on the banks. Read George's book "The Alchemy of Finance" where he explains his method of not waiting for, but engineering disequilibrium in markets. George used Obama to sue Bank of America to force them to issue these loans. Each loan was a promise that Soros knew couldn't be kept - just like the Bank of England's unsustainable currency position. Given sufficient leverage, Soros could kick the leg out and give the U.S. a reason to vote for a Marxist candidate he had made.

Look at the leverage used to set the market on fire. Why now? Why the sudden short selling? Why the rumors spread in the market by others controlled by Soros to cause bank runs? And how convenient that a candidate emerges with more than a decade "disappeared" from his life, other than phantom traces to socialist parties which also have their ties to Soros.

If you're looking for the man pulling puppet Obama's strings, look no further.

Posted by: TheMule at October 09, 2008 10:24 PM (kjqFg)

3 Bernadine Dohrn was employed as an associate at the same law firm as Michelle Obama. Barack Obama would meet Michelle while he was a summer intern at that same law firm. Did Dohrn meet Michelle Obama there? Or did the community activist Barack Obama meet Ayres before 1988?

Dohrn: "In 1982 she spent seven months in jail for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury investigating the 1981 Brink's robbery and murders in Rockland County." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E4D71739F933A25751C0A963948260

"From 1984 to 1988, Dohrn was employed by the prestigious Chicago law firm Sidley Austin." Wiki entry, mistakenly attributed to the above Times article. Apparently taken from her CV http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/clinic/dohrn/dohrnBeCV.pdf

Michelle Obama:
"grew up in the South Shore community area of Chicago"

"She graduated from High School in 1981."

"Following law school, she was an associate at the Chicago office of the law firm Sidley Austin, where she first met her husband."

"She obtained her Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Harvard Law School in 1988."

"She met Barack Obama when they were the only two African Americans at their law firm and she was assigned to mentor him while he was a summer associate."

Wikipedia.

Barack Obama:

"After four years in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer for three years from June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side."

"Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988"

"During his summers, he returned to Chicago where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley & Austin in 1989."


Wikipedia

Posted by: just wondering at October 09, 2008 10:51 PM (wREmy)

4 Barack Obama is a dangerous, dishonest, grasping politician. He didn't care that these people were terrorists. He either agreed with them, or he didn't care what they'd done, so long as it benefitted him. Either way, he is an empty, soulless opportunist. No one, and I mean NO ONE, comes up through the Chicago machine clean.

Posted by: jana at October 10, 2008 12:08 AM (vSRlG)

5 Admit it guys, you just don't like cause he's black

Posted by: Richard Hurts at October 10, 2008 02:27 AM (HqXvs)

6 "Admit it guys, you just don't like cause he's black
Posted by Richard Hurts at October 10, 2008 02:27 AM "

I'm going to write a letter to Jerry Lewis, and see if we can't get the congenitally stupid a spot on the telethon this year.

I mean come on, it isn't even a complete frigging sentence now...

Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 10, 2008 04:02 AM (M+Vfm)

7 come on Richard,give it a rest.this has absolutly nothing to do w/the guys skin color.its as plain as the nose on your face,hes a dirty polition(sp)

Posted by: 1903A3 at October 10, 2008 05:28 AM (0JFRo)

8 Richard,

What WOULD you do without your one size fits all excuse for everything, and every situation in your life?

Posted by: Bill Smith at October 10, 2008 06:46 AM (x9fYa)

9 Richard, are you actually trying to claim that we should give Mr. Obama a pass on associating with a known terrorist because of his skin color? Is a dark skin tone an excuse for doing anything reprehensible?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 10, 2008 07:13 AM (kbd0j)

10 This is a bundle of truths, half-truths and suppositions. Ayres is reprehensible, he is also a "Chicago Citizen of the Year" and the Annenberg Challenge is funded by a famous Republican.

When the economy is in free fall, this is the best you can do? Does it really make sense to poison the well for someone who is at this point is likely as not the next president?

Perhaps it is too much to expect patriotism from one who calls himself, at least in part, a "Confederate." My son, in case you are unaware, those boys actually did attack the United States and killed millions.

Posted by: IrishJazz at October 10, 2008 08:08 AM (LMKaU)

11 The Republicans better come up with something a bit more relevant to Americans than Ayers if they wish to have any chance in the election

Posted by: John Ryan at October 10, 2008 08:54 AM (xrV8E)

12 Peeps --

Richard "Dick" Hurts? Don't rise to the troll bait. And John Ryan: don't worry -- Ayers, Wright, Rezko, Khalidi, Fanny, and Fred ... get your "Hillary 2012" stickers ready ... the big O is headed to footnote-dom

Posted by: jamie hunt at October 10, 2008 11:13 AM (WgbqK)

13 Everyone, could it be that Richard's comment was written "tongue-in-cheek"?

To Terry Robbins:
Very good Terry, an excellent example of attacking the messenger and not the message.

But really, we all know that events precipitated 145 years ago by democrats are just as relevant today as those democratic candidates lie about now. After all, it was predominantly members of the democratic party that led the southern rebellion and wrote that very confederate constitution of which you eloquently write.

From Slavery, the KKK, the WWI anti-German riots, eugenics, Japanese Internment, to the poisoned race-bating we see today are all products of "progressive" democratic party politics. When you play politics with race, then race - not the individual - becomes important. And the extremes of such politics can spawn things like the Weather Underground.

Which is why we complain about it.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: Sparkey at October 10, 2008 12:25 PM (nl8zZ)

14 Ayres is reprehensible, he is also a "Chicago Citizen of the Year" and the Annenberg Challenge is funded by a famous Republican.

So what you're saying is that you know nothing about Chicago politics.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at October 10, 2008 01:37 PM (NV3P1)

15 Just a tip: if you're going to write a "media primer" that makes a bunch of factual claims about somebody, you might want to provide some evidence to back those claims up. Like, maybe, links.

Posted by: Sean at October 10, 2008 02:56 PM (qXFLk)

16 Sean, perhaps you're new here, but every single fact in this post--and they are all documented facts unless otherwise noted as just possible connections--have previously been covered on this site, most within the past few weeks, and generally multiple times.

Check out the October and September archives, or if you have fears that I may not be playing things honestly, simply Google things for yourself. When I composed this post I made sure to use dates and names and specific details, because I know the media will never trust me (which is fair, as I've learned to never trust them), but if they plug the data I provided into their research tools and find the same thing, it might eventually sink in that the Obama-Ayers is exactly as I described.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 10, 2008 04:02 PM (HcgFD)

17 I see the trolls have invaded this thread.

When does troll season open?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 10, 2008 06:09 PM (kbd0j)

18 Now try to connect.

Ayers is a socialist, besides Weatherman. He's well connected to members of Democratic Socialist of America in Chicago. DSA Chicago supported Obama's first political stunt under New Party. Obama launched his career in Ayer's living room. ACORN leaders in Chicago are members of DSA Chicago. Obama's lectures in Harvard showed that he's teaching people to be radical against the American system of government and economy. Obama worked with ACORN in his Chicago days. Obama is a member of Black Liberation Theology Church of Jeremiah Wright. Wright is a supporter of DSA Chicago. Many ACORN people are member of Wright's Church, the TUCC. Many Jeremiads are now member of DSA Chicago. Note that BLT principles are consistent with the overall platform of modern American communism by CPUSA and DSA.

ACORN uses young people to be progressive, especially in participating in the Election. ACORN is and operative implementing Fusion Strategy of Communist Michael Harrington. Harrington chose Democratic Party as its host. That's why many communists and socialists in Chicago run under Democratic Party. Fusion strategy has been implemented in many states...now debunked as election fraud activities.

Ayers and Obama's work for the youth and juveniles (outside and inside of prison cells)have been long and massive. This is why Obama is so popular in universities and other schools. Ayers stepson is now working in Venezuela to support socialism growth, and a major supporter of Pres. Chavez.

Both Communist Party of USA and DSA (all chapters) including other parties Working Families Party (a major proponent of New Party's Fusion Strategy) have long given their Support to Obama since the primaries. Bill Clinton called them the Far Left.

Note that modern communism and socialism in America has a platform of "anti-war" and appeasement. CODEPINK and MOVEON are party to UN manifesto in 2001 to protest the impending declaration of war on terror by Bush (i.e., prior to declaration). Funny, Barack's speech against the war on terror exactly matched the CODEPINK and MOVEON anti-war meme.

Reading Barack's two memoirs, we will see that the above connections and dots are consistent with his own memoirs and recollection of his own ideas. The two memoirs can only be written by a socialist or communist. Either Ayers had ghost-written Obama's memoirs or not, Obama is really a socialist.

MSM, being too liberal, helped in conceiling the facts on the dirty background of Obama.

Obama is really a Manchurian Candidate of the Socialists and Communists.

Posted by: Rivendell at October 11, 2008 01:32 AM (nx0Ey)

19 Just a tip: if you're going to write a "media primer" that makes a bunch of factual claims about somebody, you might want to provide some evidence to back those claims up. Like, maybe, links.

And now that you've cleared that up, Sherlock, get to work on the whole "moon landing" hoax.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at October 11, 2008 02:28 AM (NV3P1)

20 In the context of the upheavals of the 60's- 70's, I would argue that the police were combatants ina domestic civil war, and were therefore perfectly legitimate targets of the Weathermen and Black Panthers. The police departments of Detroit and Chicago were almost all white at the time, and continually terrorized the mostly black citizenry of those cities, as well as antiwar protestors. The most concrete examples are the "police riot" at the '68 Democratic Convention, and the brutal murder of Panther Fred Hampton by Chicago's finest.

I realize not all cops are bad people, but when you wear that uniform you choose a side, and you accept the consequences.

Posted by: Lev Bronstein at October 11, 2008 09:34 AM (7gEl9)

21 "I realize not all cops are bad people, but when you wear that uniform you choose a side, and you accept the consequences."

Well, this is a step up from pretending to care about the police, so I'll give you that. What are you, Bronstein - another rich white Parlor Pink trying to live out your revolutionary fantasies through cute little brown people?

And speaking of "terrorizing" the Black community, David Horowitz wrote in "Radical Son" that the Panthers used beatings, intimidation, and murder to extort protection from the Black communities where they conducted their operations.(BTW - the sources he cites include writings by the Panthers themselves; they can't be dismissed as Conservative "misinformation".) The Panthers even murdered White radicals who supported them. Something for all the Bronsteinesque keyboard revolutionaries out there to keep in mind - no?

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at October 11, 2008 10:53 AM (1aw/n)

22 yes it is true, when you put on a police uniform, you choose a side.....it is called 'good'. This is the side defending ordinary innocent people from dangerous criminals. Is that a bad thing?

Posted by: realityman at October 11, 2008 12:00 PM (cYu3d)

23 I live a million miles away and have learnt all I care to about Ayers in less than an hour (I mixed my research between left, right and his own propaganda). That a possible president can miss this (for even a few years) is questionable. McCain's Keating Five is not of the same league...and this seems to be only one amongst many contradictions with The One. (By the way..'That One'...is relatively easy to see can be replaced with "That Guy", or "That Dude" (that one senator sitting right there maybe?)).
While I have heard some quite bad stories of McCains personal conduct over the years (unconfirmed)...I have also read (unconfirmed) his boot camp friend discount racial prejudice. The article was from a few years ago (probably 2000 election...but i the US media public domain) and not overly in McCain's favour...although his convictions were still evident. It also made me think (3 elections later is it?)...a definite survivor (already proven...I just mean politically), and determined.

Also - that McCain was all over Fannie and Freddie for you guys a few years ago. Obama's position at that time? Or his campaign contributions from said couple I wonder? McCains too for that if anyone knows. The comparison would be interesting.

Posted by: Outside Observer at October 12, 2008 04:33 AM (mIxfh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Thanks, Google! Now Perhaps Barack Can Explain His New Party Membership

Search engine giant Google rolled back the clock to their oldest available index today to celebrate their tenth anniversary, and guess what I found?

In the New Party's March 1996 Update.

Winning in Wisconsin

The New Party continues to roll through Wisconsin, with victories this month in municipal and county primaries in Milwaukee and Madison. Progressive Milwaukee is backing three county board, one city council, and one school board candidate. Progressive Dane (Madison) is endorsing nine county board candidates. All NP-backed candidates won their primaries.

Chicago Campaigns

The Illinois New Party is working intensively on Willie Delgado's state representative campaign. Delgado is part of an emerging Latino network in Chicago. We're also backing Danny Davis in a Congressional race, Barack Obama for state representative, and judicial candidate Patricia Martin. In addition to the electoral work, the NP in Chicago is supporting a local living wage campaign and an effort to prevent the placement of a waste site on the West Side.

And then there is the October 1996 New Party Update:

New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races:

Arkansas: The Little Rock New Party has a full slate of candidates up for election in November. LRNP steering committee member Michael Booker is running unopposed for re-election to the Arkansas State House. Two NP members - Paul Kelly and Genevieve Stewart - are running for at-large (city-wide) city council positions. And in a head-to-head battle between the New Party and the conservative right, NP member Jayne Cia faces the Arkansas state chair of Empower America (Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett's organization) for a Justice of the Peace (county board) position.

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).

In the Populist:

New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.

And from The Columbus Free Press, the reprinting of a New Party press release:

Illinois: The first NP member heads to Congress, as Danny Davis wins an overwhelming 85% victory yesterday (he got a higher percentage of the vote in that district than the President). NP member and State Senate candidate Barack Obama won uncontested. Interestingly, it appears that the local Democratic machine is trying to distance itself from our folks. At a "Democratic Unity" march on Chicago's West Side, a flyer invited community members to join with a host of local democratic candidates. The only two west-side Democrats not listed: NP members Danny Davis (U.S. House candidate) and Michael Chandler (Alderman and Ward Committeeman).

It is now well documented that Barack Obama ran for office and won uncontested as a New Party candidate, but what is the New Party?

In 1996, for all intents and purposes, "ACORN and the New Party were essentially the same body."

That would be the same ACORN that Barack Obama has close ties to today, the same ACORN that Barack Obama funneled $800,000 to this year, and which is under investigation in at least a dozen states for voter registration fraud.

Is it too much to ask of "real" journalists to ask the campaign why Barack Obama ran as the candidate to the left of even the most radical left-wing of the Democratic Party, and has since tried to downplay that radical association?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:11 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Heh.
Obama's poison seed are bearing bitter fruit.
Thanks for not dropping this.

Posted by: Gus Bailey at October 09, 2008 03:25 PM (LZarw)

2 I certainly hope you've screencapped those pages before they're flushed down the memory hole...

Posted by: Diogenes at October 09, 2008 03:31 PM (2MrBP)

3 It's October.

Is this a surprise?

Posted by: Jeff at October 09, 2008 03:44 PM (yiMNP)

4 "Is it too much to ask of "real" journalists to ask the campaign why Barack Obama ran as the candidate to the left of even the most radical left-wing of the Democratic Party, and has since tried to downplay that radical association?"

And let's not forget- this in an uncontested election where he didn't need to work to win anyone over- it has to be taken as a sign of ideological belief, not a just political tactic to build support.

Posted by: douglas at October 09, 2008 04:30 PM (20QoQ)

5 It is astounding and heartening that this is actually being aired. It must be remembered that while it is obvious to those paying attention that fraud has long been a staple of Democrat electoral success to the rank-and-filer this is quite a shocker and suspect. The media has puffed up every allegation of Republican vote fraud and buried even convictions for fraud on the Left. The predictable result is that the ACORN types are even more bold each cycle and they are inoculated from Rep objections with the schoolyard logic that it is just, "I know you are but..."
Hopefully the depraved actions of these pirates are enough to spur action and it is not too late.

Posted by: megapotamus at October 09, 2008 05:36 PM (ORB0m)

6 Barack at his next press conference: "This is not the Barack Obama I knew."

Posted by: C-C-G at October 09, 2008 05:59 PM (kbd0j)

7 "Is it too much to ask of "real" journalists to ask the campaign why Barack Obama ran" What kind of nightmare did you have last night? There are no 'real' journalists left in this country. They are all high paid copy boys for Hussein's press releases as their outlets go broke.
Took a bet today on which left wing press outlet hits the skids first. All are billions of dollars in debt and the ads are stopping. I bet either the NYSlimes or CBS. Either way there's going to be a lot of 'non journalist' on welfare.

Posted by: Scrapiron at October 09, 2008 08:04 PM (GAf+S)

8 CY

based on the non-scientific "troll meter", I think that the Ayers/NewParty/Acorn/Dohrn relationship is not threatening the Messiah. I mean, where are the trolls doing violence to the English language by comparing Ayers to Charles Keating?

If it was a real threat, you would be inundated by trolls.

People don't care. I think part of the reason they don't care is because they cannot remember the desolation caused by socialism/facism (same thing) and the education system has abandoned any pretense of supporting an individual rights/property rights/capitalistic society.

Maybe the voters need to see how bad a mess of the economy the socialist government planners will make in order to realize the utter foolishness of appointing the kind of morons that would think asking terrorists before boarding a plane "do you have a weapon" to control our economy/healthcare/energy.

Posted by: iconoclast at October 09, 2008 09:45 PM (ex0JG)

9 Iconoclast, I must respectfully disagree.

Just because the enemy isn't covering his flanks is no reason not to attack there.

Remember, these are the same people who thought Kerry running on his war record would be a winning gameplan.

They can make errors, and they have. This may be one, and we need to hit it hard to see if it is or not.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 10, 2008 07:32 AM (kbd0j)

10 "This is not the Barack Obama I knew." LOL

Now Palin just needs to get out there and hammer at this.

Capitalism has done more to raise human beings out of misery than any other force in history.

Socialism/Communism has only killed 200,000,000 people -- obviously we didn't do it right. Let's try it again!

Posted by: Stephen R at October 10, 2008 11:39 AM (+WnBv)

11 ccg

I don't disagree with you on whether or not Ayers/Acorn/New Party attacks should continue. They should. First, because it will always take some time for this to get through to the independents (particularly because these facts are embargoed by the press). Second, because there is no real negative to hammering on this as long as other issues--Obama is in the middle of the financial crisis--are used to both attack Obama and to differentiate McCain.

And, finally, Ayers/Acorn attacks do fire up the base. Which is worthwhile even if the attacks don't make a difference.

It is the Obamabots perception of the effect of those attacks I was commenting upon. They clearly don't view this as a threat--maybe because they cannot understand how anyone would view association with a Weatherman/woman terrorist as a negative. Sort of like why we would wonder why associating with the NRA was a negative.

Posted by: iconoclast at October 10, 2008 05:16 PM (ex0JG)

12 Actually, Icon (may I call you Icon?), I am fair-minded enough to see why some might consider NRA membership is a negative.

But your point is still well-taken... the Obamamaniacs live in such an echo chamber that they don't realize how those of us in what many of them dismiss as "flyover country" view these associations of Obama's.

In fact, not only to they not know, many of them actively do not want to know, lest it raise doubts in their minds about their secular savior.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 10, 2008 06:08 PM (kbd0j)

13 Who knew what secrets would be revealed about the ONE. Halleluja. I hope these pages are all saved on back up drives, for the memory hole about these pages, that is to come. If McCain doesn't bring this up in commercials and at the next debate then he really doesn't want to win. I hope Gov Palin at least has the grit to make an issue of this even if some people call Obama the socialist that he is.
Where is Karl Rove when you need him?

Posted by: eaglewingz08 at October 12, 2008 03:23 PM (W88Qb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Watching the Watchers

What's more fun that getting a press pass to see Sarah Palin speak at your alma mater? Getting a seat where you can watch every move of the press corps.

Watching the Palin Watchers, at PJM.

Update: I just watched the press in action. A local reporter had a chance to listen to them today.

As you might have heard, I am covering the McCain/Palin appearance today. At the media breakfast at the Pfister Hotel about an hour ago, you would simply not believe the vicious, nasty conversation I just overheard between several "elite" media types from the McClatchey news service, AP, and a couple of other sources I didn't quite catch.

Over the course of just a few minutes, I heard that "Sean Hannity gives Dick Cheney the best head of his life," and that he and Lou Dobbs are "mean-spirited sycophants," and that McCain himself is "angry" and "crusty. One even recalled a recent campaign event at which Sarah Palin autographed a supporter's Bible, prompting this "objective" journalist to remark "these people terrify me."

And this was just in the span of a 10 minute conversation! I simply cannot believe that these are the people entrusted to cover the McCain/Palin campaign fairly and accurately. I have never before wanted to do a show like yours quite as badly as I do right now--so that I can expose these people for who they really are: unabashed, unashamed partisans whose callous, bitter attitude towards conservatives very clearly permeates their work.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:47 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Obama's Friends. America's Enemies.

A new internet only ad from the McCain campaign, "Ayers," tying terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers to their protégé, Barack Obama.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:02 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

More Hidden Relationships in the Obama Campaign

Phil Carter, Veterans Director for the Obama Campaign sent out a press release yesterday about a "Congressional Report Card" from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) that ranked Joe Biden and Barack Obama with "B" ratings on veterans issues, while giving John McCain a "D."

What did Carter forget to mention?

In addition to being the Veterans Director for the Obama Campaign, he's a founding member of IAVA.

Milblogs Blackfive and This Ain't Hell are covering Carter's obvious conflict of interest and the condescending IAVA response.

Frankly, I've always heard Carter is supposed to be a stand-up guy, but looking at this, he obviously isn't. He should probably step down from the Obama campaign, and like Matt says, I wouldn't be too surprised if this violated campaign laws against coordinating between outside groups and campaigns.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:12 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 08, 2008

Barack Obama Was Member of Socialist New Party

Reader Gus Bailey pointed this out earlier via email, and Ace breaks out the flaming skull.

I don't understand what the big deal is about.

So Barack Obama was a member of an extremist political party established by the Democratic Socialists for America, the Chicago New Party, and they cheered his victory in his uncontested run for his Illinois state senate seat as a step away from American values, towards socialism.

Does it really matter?

Barack Obama's most direct political godfather is a bomb-building terrorist still bent on undermining capitalism. His hostess for his first political fundraiser was once labeled "the most dangerous woman in America" and is a fan of how the Charles Manson "family" murdered their victims.

Barack Obama's cultish church of 21 years is built upon a combination of Black Panther rhetoric, racism against whites, and a Marxist Jesus Christ. If his pastor and mentor Jeremiah Wright had not shrieked " God damn America!" and had not tried to blame the AIDS virus on a government attempt at genocide against African Americans, Barack Obama would still being going to that church.

Barack Obama laundered millions of dollars in education funds to extremist groups in an attempt to indoctrinate children instead of educate them.

Barack Obama, while a member of the Joyce Foundation, attempted to undermine the integrity of legal scholarship in a shadowy attempt to subvert the Constitution and imperil the Second Amendment by conning the Supreme Court.

Folks, if being deeply associated with terrorist leaders and racists for more than two decades doesn't cause disgust in American voters, if they don't care how Obama funneled grant money to extremists, and tried to undermine the Constitution, will his membership in a political party that seeks to undermine the America way of life really stand a chance of changing their minds?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:55 PM | Comments (76) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 When the voters realize that they can vote themselves money, democracy is lost.

We are at that tipping point where the majority is going to vote themselves money by voting for Obama.


God help the USA.

Posted by: 1sttofight at October 08, 2008 03:13 PM (dKfUz)

2 I probably would have been a Commie myself, if I had been born in 1900. The Marxism has been apparent in Team Barry's rhetoric from day one. Sadly, McCain does not draw a bright line here. Possibly he doesn't believe in one. His record implies this... pragamatism and all that. Well, McCain has given little reason lately for a liberty-minded American to lend him allegience. Fortunately, Barry gives plenty of reasons to vote AGAINST him daily. I will proudly, adamantly and resolutely vote AGAINST Mr. Obama because of his color.

That color is red.

Not redstate red, the original red.

Posted by: megapotamus at October 08, 2008 03:16 PM (LF+qW)

3 Great comments. Yes, I'm afraid more people can vote for money for themselves, so we are doomed. My son and I agree: maybe only property owners should vote, as in the old days. Voting should be a privilege, not a right!

Posted by: cc at October 08, 2008 03:25 PM (gEyjP)

4 If his pastor and mentor Jeremiah Wright had not been caught shrieking "God damn America!" and had not blamed the AIDS virus on a government attempt at genocide against African Americans, Barack Obama would still be going to that church.

Fixed it for you. Because let's face it, the only reason the ONE threw his mentor under the bus was because it was politically expedient and not because he disagreed with the Revs hate speak.

Posted by: 2n2this at October 08, 2008 03:26 PM (BH2UK)

5 At least he can't say that it wasn't him personally as with Ayers' bombings and Wright's rants. I'm guessing the MSM has already determined that it doesn't meet the newsworthy threshold, though.

Posted by: Ryan at October 08, 2008 03:43 PM (y92fs)

6 Thanks for the nod.

Maybe Socialism is a bigger boogeyman than being an egomaniacal power junky.?.

Maybe, if it goes viral the MSM ... ... wait, nevermind.

Oh, well, just one more thing in the "I told you so" bag for the next four, make that eight years.

Posted by: Gus Bailey at October 08, 2008 03:56 PM (LZarw)

7 2n2this almost makes a point worth of inclusion in Bob's original post: Barack Obama quit going to his church not because of any insensitive, inflammatory rhetoric being spewed from the pulpit, but because it became politically expedient to do so. What sort of principles does a man who so cavalierly abandons his church hold?

Posted by: Diffus at October 08, 2008 04:21 PM (MR/ge)

8 I've been mentioning this resurrection of the NDSAP for a while now. My bet on the next action in this war is that liberal judges will start ruling that the subprime tenants can't be evicted, because the government now owns the property.

There goes private property out the window, you get to indirectly nationalize about 10% of the country, and you now have a "captive audience" - people that will vote Democratic National Socialist in November, so they can keep the houses (and cars - thanks, Barney Frank) that they didn't pay for.

We just had a multi-billion dollar wealth distribution take place - "from those according to their abilities, to those according to their needs" - and I bet you never even felt the knife going in. Now it starts twisting....

Better get used to doing that Obama chant thing so that when it turns into doing "Zeig Heil", you'll be all practiced at responding correctly when "that one" - the ObamaNation - speaks.

Posted by: JinnyB at October 08, 2008 05:09 PM (/lDn+)

9 It helps to keep flooding the media with more information on Obama. All of it adds up and there are people who have yet to make a decision. This is not lost til the votes are counted. We can still win. The hardest part is not to give up. This is not lost. Man u0p.

Posted by: JennyP at October 08, 2008 06:17 PM (S3QSl)

10 If Rev Wright didn't call Obama a typical politician who'd say anything to get elected he would still be in the Obamanation's camp even with the Amerikkka & AIDS comments. He made the grave mistake of insulting the ONE.

Posted by: eaglewingz08 at October 08, 2008 06:28 PM (W88Qb)

11 Freedom only lasts about 200 years anyway. The U.S. has passed that threshold so I guess we should be happy. Welcome to stagflation for decades to come.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at October 08, 2008 06:50 PM (vuXJQ)

12
jpe.if you don't stop you will go blind or grow
hair on the palm of your hand...

Posted by: Gator at October 08, 2008 08:37 PM (uaTZE)

13 why nothing about the Alaska Freedom party?

oh right...you are hypocrites I forgot
Sorry!

Posted by: gillie at October 08, 2008 08:37 PM (7JpXj)

14 To jpe-
Don't be to quick to judge this tidbit as not relavant. Sounds like you are a F***ging retard.
Wheres the birth cert? I can see the headlines now "Obozo disqualified" for Pres. Can hardly wait.

Posted by: patti at October 08, 2008 08:44 PM (jh6BE)

15 Folks, I'm just a humble commenter here (though one of long-standing), but may I offer a piece of advice?

Don't reply to the astroturf trolls.

First, all that does is give them what they want. Why help them get their jollies?

Second, CY is pretty darned efficient at deleting their comments, so yours either get deleted along with them or, more likely, appear to be replying to no one.

Just let the astroturf trolls (astro-trolls?) make fools of themselves all by themselves. If we don't answer, they'll go away quicker.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 08, 2008 08:50 PM (fxHiG)

16 Don't worry.

This stuff does matter.

Most people just aren't really aware of it yet.

Watch and see.

Posted by: Clint at October 08, 2008 09:01 PM (oZ5OG)

17 One correction, my dear host. You say:

"If his pastor and mentor Jeremiah Wright had not shrieked " God damn America!" and had not tried to blame the AIDS virus on a government attempt at genocide against African Americans, Barack Obama would still being going to that church."

The correction is, if nobody knew that his pastor said those things, he'd still be there.

Posted by: Ted at October 08, 2008 09:21 PM (Yk5dn)

18 Well, someone already made that point - carry on!

Posted by: Ted at October 08, 2008 09:22 PM (Yk5dn)

19 As for the Alaska Independence Party video, dear gillie, it was
a FAKE! Had you investigated it further, you would have known
that, but alas, you grab at anything. The truth is out there, use
it or lose it.

Posted by: Lynn at October 08, 2008 09:38 PM (NLtVk)

20 The people will just have to experience it to believe it.

If Obama is going to win, the big question is how much of the Dem party is along with him?

It is clear groups like ACORN and individuals like Ayers and the Saul guy who defined community organizing -- were using the Marxist-Leninist play book -- that the means justifies the end --- that committed members join other groups - like labor unions and other organizations - then seek to take them over by using a variety of tactics. Or at least bend the influence of the group as a whole to help your minority view point from within. They haven't been terribly successful in taking over groups in the past, but they have always spelled out their goals and methods.

The question is how much influence an Obama in the White House will be able to swing his way within the Dem. party?

Getting news like this out is important, because it helps people connect the dots for the masses.

Why has Obama refused to shine light on his college days and activities before Chicago?

Why does he insist Ayers was just some familiar face in the crowd?

Why didn't he throw Ayers under the bus?

Why would he deny membership in the New Party?

If the American people could see some of the mountain of textual evidence of how the Marxist-Leninist taught each other how to infiltrate then (hopefully) dominate groups and eventually the government/society -- they would see that hiding group membership of key players was part of the process -- as well as using legal and illegal means to subvert the establishment --- which explains ACORN.

I'm fine with an Obama presidency. I hope once he's in office, he'll come out of the closet.

Way back just before the start of this election cycle, I wanted to see a Gingrich-Hillary run off, because those two figures polarize the other side --- and I thought that would generate a much needed, nation wide debate about what exactly the United States is in the world and at home.

Obama, given his socialist and anti-(to date) US sentiment, would have been an even better candidate to get such a debate going, but the media refused to allow the chance for such a debate and Obama was more than happy to keep his past hidden so he could win.

Now, if he gets into the White House, he will seek to activate that sentiment into policy - and maybe that will spark the soul searching our society needs.

Posted by: usinkorea at October 08, 2008 10:02 PM (CZ3/T)

21 Not to worry, Racist Revrund Wright will be Hussein O spiritual advisor in the white house and Ayers will be Attorney General.

Democrats can't change their mind, they are all brain dead.

War is coming to the streets of America sooner than you think.

Posted by: Scrapiron at October 08, 2008 10:11 PM (I4yBD)

22 Its fake that her hubby was memeber?

nope

Its fake that she addressed the group?

nope

Sorry by your standards of association, she is a radical secessionist!!!

Posted by: gillie at October 08, 2008 10:21 PM (7JpXj)

23 If anyone has read BHO's two biographies, there is little doubt that they show he was heavily influenced by the very far left-socialist/communist views of his mom, his dad, his maternal grandparents and their friends, and the anti-white views of his pastor of twenty year, the Rev. Wright. If not expressly, he implicitly acknowledges this influence.

From 1988-1996, when he first ran for public office, he worked daily with ACORN and other leftist community organizers in mostly african-american Chicago communities with time out for a law degree at Harvard.

In 1996, he was introduced to politics with the express political support of socialist Ayers, his weatherwoman socialist wife Dohrn, and (we now know) the expressly socialist New Party -- whose members he volunteered to train with his (socialist) Alinsky/ACORN tactics.

From 1996-2003, he served as Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Foundation working hand and glove with avowed Socialist Ayers spending 160 million dollars promoting avowed socialist programs in the Chicago Public Schools, as well as get out the vote projects for ACORN.

There is nothing in BHO's public statements, his work, or his votes from 2004-2008 disavowing any of these activities.

The inference I draw from all of this undisputed evidence is BHO still believes that socialism is the answer to our country's ills whatever they may be. Why doesn't this concern those who support him?

Posted by: Jim Rhoads aka vnjagvet at October 08, 2008 10:43 PM (2PHvb)

24 Has Palin disavowed the alaska Freedom party?

Oh wait, she doesn't have to

Because again,

you all are a bunch of hypocrites

Posted by: gillie at October 08, 2008 10:47 PM (7JpXj)

25 mmmm astro-turf,,,

Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 08, 2008 10:55 PM (M+Vfm)

26 Gillie--
Perhaps the reason Sarah Palin hasn't "disavowed" the "Alaska Freedom Party" is that there is no such thing.

Posted by: Trish at October 08, 2008 11:36 PM (/JkYO)

27 Trish, DO NOT CONFUSE THEM WITH FACTS!


it only makes them scream louder

Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 08, 2008 11:37 PM (M+Vfm)

28 Right, right, I keep forgetting that.

Posted by: Trish at October 08, 2008 11:41 PM (/JkYO)

29 Yes, this one might actually make a difference. It has the potential to fit into a 30 second or one minute sound-bite sized explanation, which is what it takes to get through to the American people anymore. All you have to do is show the evidence, and say that he's a Socialist, and he's been lying the whole time. That's something people can understand without having to read eight blog articles.

Posted by: douglas at October 09, 2008 01:23 AM (20QoQ)

30 Just a short note:

I used to live in Alaska. Alaskan Independence Party most certainly exists.

http://www.akip.org/

Posted by: ReganCon at October 09, 2008 01:49 AM (1mEf5)

31 My bet on the next action in this war is that liberal judges will start ruling that the subprime tenants can't be evicted, because the government now owns the property.

Bingo.

Posted by: SPB at October 09, 2008 02:08 AM (5hxyn)

32 My mistake, that's not quite right.

This is about not evicting renters from property that their landlord hasn't been paying on.

Actually, that'd seem like a dumb thing to do anyway, assuming they're paying their rent. Good tenants are hard to find.

Posted by: SBP at October 09, 2008 02:09 AM (5hxyn)

33 ReganCon,

Yes, the Alaska Independence Party exists.

However, the troll referred to the Alaska Freedom Party, which doesn't exist.

A minor point, to be sure, but still a point.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 09, 2008 07:20 AM (kbd0j)

34 C-C-G & ReganCon

Thank you for correcting me!
I appreciate it.

Now lets look:
Its a secessionist group.
Palin's hubby was a card carrying member
Gov Palin addressed the group, sought their support and called their convention, inspiring.

Shouldn't she be convicted of treason?

Posted by: gillie at October 09, 2008 08:04 AM (5PYEe)

35 This girllie chick is actually trying to equate a Governor doing her job and addressing a political group, one she doesn't even belong to with a man who's friends with a man who has slaughtered many innocent people. Is the left really that sad and pathetic?

By the way, the left keeps talking about the blue states seceding from the nation so why would girllie chick have a problem with the Alaskan Independence Party? Talk about hypocritical. But then again the lefts strategy in lying and hypocrisy.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at October 09, 2008 08:25 AM (vuXJQ)

36 gillie,

As I recall, Palin was the mayor of Wasilla and asked to speak at the beginning of the AIP conference, which she did; part of her expected duties as mayor, as it would have been if a Democratic or Republican convention had been held anywhere else. She also put on a Pat Buchanan when he came campaigning years ago and stopped in her town. She was doing her job as the lead emissary of her town, and was also being polite, not that you are likely familiar with that word.

But let's use your own logic, shall we?

If Sarah Palin can be convicted for treason because someone she is close to was a member of the AIP, then you should have no problem shouting from the top of the highest building that Barack Obama is an undisputed pro-lynching racist, Marxist/Leninist, and terrorist.

He has at least a 21-year relationship with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn, a pair of Marxist/Leninist domestic terrorists, was himself a member of the communist/socialist/black nationalist (racists) New Party, and belonged to a racist cult for over 20 years that was build on the teaching of the Black Panthers and Malcolm X, which claimed god must either be spiritually "black" or must be killed and viewed Jesus as a black Marxist, and do you even want me to get in his two decades of mentoring from lynching advocate Michael Fleger?


The difference of course, is that Todd Palin never did anything illegal.

Barack Obama's mentors firebombed people's homes, blew up police stations, killed and wounded law enforcement officers, carried out over 30 terrorist attacks and were attempting the most deadly terrorist attack in the first 194 years of this country when one of their idiots touched wires on the detonator of one of the last bombs they were building just hours before the attack, bringing a building down upon himself, stead of a bunch of soldiers and their dates as was their plan.

You want to play guilty by association?

Let's go. I'm just getting warmed up.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 09, 2008 08:54 AM (HcgFD)

37 So if the KKK has a convention in New York, Bloomberg would address them, call their convention "inspiring" and say "keep up the good work"???? I doubt it.

Look Sara Palin addressed and praised a group that's stated goals is to secede from the union, perhaps violently. Her husband was enamored enough with their stated goals that he became a registered member.

Those are indisputable facts.
She has not publicly disavowed that group.
Yet you say nothing

So I am not asking for Palin to be convicted of Treason. I am simply pointing out under YOUR standard of Obama 'n Ayers she is a treasonous secessionist.
Yet you say nothing.

So no, I don't want to play guilt by association because I understand that in the course of politics, casual associations can be trumped up to mean anything. I am simply asking you to be consistent.

Is that too much to ask?

Posted by: gillie at October 09, 2008 09:27 AM (5PYEe)

38 gillie, you are blatantly lying. The AIP has never endorsed violence.

And you did ask directly, "Shouldn't she be convicted of treason?"

I'll tolerate differences of opinion, but not blatant lying. Keep it up, and you'll be banned.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 09, 2008 09:46 AM (HcgFD)

39 Yes you are correct:
I took these two quotes from the founder of the AIP as a testament to violence:
"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government,"
And
"And I won't be buried under their damn flag,"

I was wrong. Not violence. But of course, its obvious that anyone who joins this party must HATE AMERICA. Right?

Regarding treason.

You are right agian!
But just to clarify, my intention was not to call for her imprisonment over treason.

My intention was to point out that under YOUR standard of Obama 'n Ayers she is a treasonous secessionist.

Sorry that was not clear.

Posted by: gillie at October 09, 2008 10:00 AM (5PYEe)

40 My intention was to point out that under YOUR standard of Obama 'n Ayers she is a treasonous secessionist.

Well, you failed. Pathetically.

HTH. HAND.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at October 09, 2008 11:17 AM (MOvul)

41 Can't really top PatC, but to say there's one in every group.

Gillie, trying to nuance the Palins' interaction with the AIP to obfuscate BO's history of anti-American associations and memberships is typical, and doesn't hold water.

Like I said, PatC got it right: FAIL.

Posted by: Gus Bailey at October 09, 2008 11:34 AM (LZarw)

42 The founder of the AIP was pro-secession, but it's not in the platform of the party, they've as a group refused to advocate that. His quote also is explicit in referring to the government, as opposed to Rev. Wright who hates Amerikkka.

Besides, what happened to the liberal line about dissent being the highest form of patriotism? See, Todd Palin could use that line justifiably, but Rev. Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, Pfleger, not so much, because if you hate a large segment of the people themselves, you can't be interested in improving a nation, only creating a new one over the bones of the old.

Oh, and the AIP is equivalent to the KKK? Wow. If that's your idea of logic, there's really no debate to be had.

Posted by: douglas at October 09, 2008 04:43 PM (20QoQ)

43 Ya know, if the Obots want to equate Palin at AIP with Barry/Ayers/ACORN, okay. That means that Barry's aknowledged professional and ideological affinity with Marxism should get at LEAST equal media exposure, no? Let's air everyone's knickers, shall we? I knew you would!

Posted by: megapotamus at October 09, 2008 05:48 PM (ORB0m)

44 Let us not forget that once again, the Obamamaniacs are trying to compare their Presidential candidate with the GOP's Vice-Presidential candidate.

I guess that's either a slap in the face for Obama or a real boost for Palin.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 09, 2008 07:18 PM (kbd0j)

45 This is proof that Obama is indeed a Socialist. If this doesn't stop him then nothing will.

Posted by: Me at October 11, 2008 06:56 PM (Ok3Ph)

46 Some pages of the new party site say that he was a member, other pages only say endorsed. Some people have tried to use this to say that Obama can't help it if someone endorses him.

But there is no question that he was a member, and not just endorsed. The Illinois New Party Contract required that he be a member. They would not have endorsed him, if he wasn't a member.

Posted by: metoo at October 14, 2008 12:40 AM (hB4qU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

AYERS: "Capitalism Promotes Racism and Militarism"

As Barack Obama's political godfather of 21-years, Bill Ayers has long plotted to use education as well as pipe-bombs to spread his hatred of the American way of life. A reader sent me a link last night to Ayers' November, 2006 speech before the World Education Fourm in Caracas, Venezuela, posted on Ayers' blog.

L-to-R. Bill Ayers, Terrorist spawn Chesa Boudin, Luis Bonilla-Molina. And Che, of course. (source)

In this speech, Ayers' praised Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his version of Bolivarianism, a blend of South American socialism and communism, and the support of Marxist terrorism, as practiced by Chavez's proven support of his friends in FARC and other terrorist groups.

Ayers' strong dislike of American capitalism and self-loathing towards white America permeates this speech as is has permeated every aspect of his academic and terrorist work over the past 40 years.

Here's a taste of Ayers' philosophy which has helped shape Barack Obama's worldview since at least 1987:

I walked out of jail and into my first teaching position—and from that day until this I’ve thought of myself as a teacher, but I’ve also understood teaching as a project intimately connected with social justice. After all, the fundamental message of the teacher is this: you can change your life—whoever you are, wherever you’ve been, whatever you’ve done, another world is possible. As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!

I taught at first in something like a Simoncito—called Head Start—and eventually taught at every level in barrios and prisons and insurgent projects across the United States. I learned then that education is never neutral. It always has a value, a position, a politics. Education either reinforces or challenges the existing social order, and school is always a contested space – what should be taught? In what way? Toward what end? By and for whom? At bottom, it involves a struggle over the essential questions: what does it mean to be a human being living in a human society?

Totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. Royalty requires allegiance. Capitalism promotes racism and militarism – turning people into consumers, not citizens. Participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life.

"I learned then that education is never neutral. It always has a value, a position, a politics."

Thus Ayer's describes his philosophy on the role of education in undermining American democracy, and the importance of corrupting schools into indoctrination camps for the success of his revolution.

It is this philosophy that drove Ayers to write his grant proposal for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a plot that placed Ayers' pupil and fellow traveler Barack Obama in the role of Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, even though Obama did not have the qualifications for that position that others on the board. Obama was picked for one reason: to be a "yes man" and funnel grant money towards the indoctrination efforts of Ayers' pet left wing projects, including over a million dollars sent to Ayer's own creation, the Small School Workshop.

The media continues to pretend that the 21-year partnership between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers is one that should focus only on Ayers' roll as the leader of a terrorist group. Indeed, it should be a campaign-ending issue for Obama, a man with terrorist friends as we are engaged in a war against terrorists.

But the dozens of bombs that Weathermen and their offshoots exploded in the 1970s and 80s, the armed robberies they committed, the police officers they killed, the fire-bombings they carried out against women and children, and their failed terrorist attacks against American soldiers wasn't the end of Ayer's philosophical assault on America.

Like the shared hatreds professed by Barack Obama's other two mentors of 20+ years, Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright, and radical activist priest Michael Pfleger, Bill Ayers has never stopped trying to undermine American capitalism and our American way of life, plotting to turn us into another socialist or communist state.

Perhaps we could forgive Barack Obama if he had only fleeting or inconsequential tie with an isolated radical in his past, but it is clear that the three most influential men in his life—each one a mentor of 20+ years—are all political extremists:

• An unrepentant left wing terrorist that killed Americans and would have killed far more if they hadn't been incompetent, who helped start Obama's career as his political godfather
• A racist conspiracy-mongering minister that teaches a warped Christian-based cult theology based on the teaching of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers that turns Jesus christ into a Marxist rebel
• a radical priest that advocates lynching those whom he doesn't agree with and is supporter of left wing radicalism and noted racist Louis Farrakan.

How can anyone look at those who have had the most influence on Barack Obama's life, and conclude that a man who surrounds himself with those who hate America, is fit to be our President?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:43 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Obama's Constitutional Subversion

A new report (PDF) written by Second Amendment lawyer Dave Hardy of Of Arms and the Law finds that while constitutional law professor Barack Obama was serving on the Joyce Foundation's Board of Directors from 1994-2002, Joyce set out to corrupt the availability of academic scholarship concerning the Second Amendment. The goal was to control published research so that the U.S Supreme Court would be influenced as much as possible by the overwhelming preponderance of recent scholarship favoring the collective rights interpretation favored by gun control advocates and firearm prohibitionists.

Hardy summarizes:

The Joyce Foundation years ago realized that a Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment was likely, and decided to use its millions to buy the case indirectly. It created a supposed academic research center as its wholly-owned subsidiary. It corrupted law reviews, dictating their content, and even trying to dictate who could speak at universities accepting Joyce's money. It laundered its money through its Center and thru a University’s Foundation.

An attorney named Barak Obama was right in the middle of the plan.

The foundation poured millions of dollars into buying influence in cash-starved law reviews, foundations, and universities, providing that they would only publish the collective rights interpretations approved by Joyce, and that they would refuse to publish scholarship that provided an individualist rights interpretation.

This underhanded attempt by Obama and Joyce to influence the Supreme Court--essentially attempting to "buy" an anti-gun interpretation of the Second amendment by manipulating legal scholarship--flies in the face of the revisionist history recently offered up by Annenberg's FactCheck.Org, which recently and dishonestly portrayed Obama's newly-minted individual rights interpretation as authentic. IT is also a tactic that Joyce continues in Obama's absence, as the list of university and "public heath" grants targeting firearms on the Foundation's own web site reveals.

How far was Joyce willing to go under Obama's leadership to provide the Supreme Court with slanted scholarship?

According to Hardy, Joyce paid Ohio State University to create a Second Amendment Research Center, and used the Center to manufacture scholarship only favorable to the collectivist interpretation. Joyce then used OSU's Center as a shell organization to purchase influence at other law reviews, including Fordham and Stanford. Fordam and Stanford then dedicates review issues to articles advocating the collectivist, anti-gun scholarship. In short, constitutional scholar Obama attempted to undermine the interpretation of the Constitution.

The Hardy report is just the latest in a disturbing trend of information trickling out about Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama that suggests he is not only radically aligned, but that he is comfortable with using subterfuge to undermine both the Judicial and Executive in the pursuit of political power and influence.

Stanley Kurtz has done and continues to do yeoman's work in sifting through the available archives trying to uncover exactly what transpired before and while Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama was the chairman of the failed Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (hereafter, "Challenge" or "CAC") began as a successful grant application from University of Illinois at Chicago education professor Bill Ayers. Outside of Chicago, Ayers is best known as a domestic terrorist who operated in the in the late 1960s and 1970s as one of founders, leaders and reputed bomb builders and designers of the Weather Underground.

The Annenberg Foundation (yes the same parent group that funds FactCheck.org and misrepresented Obama's Second Amendment record), provided the Challenge with a charter grant of $49.2 million in 1995, and the Challenge raises and spend more than $100 million in total with Barack Obama as the CAC Chairman. The tens of millions of dollars raised by the foundation was funneled not into proven educational programs, but laundered into grants for radical left wing organizations that spent the money on efforts to agitate and indoctrinate students and their families to use them as cannon fodder in a battle Ayers and his ideological allies were having over the fate of Chicago's public schools with the teachers union and school administrators. By any measure--and most tellingly by the Challenge's own research arm--the challenge was a educational failure.

The failure of Chicago Annenberg Challenge under Barack Obama and it's laundering of funds to further the goals of aging radicals instead improving the Chicago Public Schools as was their promise, has been avoided as much as possible by most media organizations who don't want to jeopardize his candidacy with the inconvenient record of his failure as an executive.

Barack Obama's willingness to scheme in an attempt to corrupt scholarship and deceive the Supreme Court, his role in laundering money to aging terrorists (while stealing the education promised to a generation of schoolchildren), and current bid impose totalitarian free speech restrictions (more here) indicates that Barack Obama is precisely the kind of deceptive authoritarian thug liberals claim to see and hate in President George W. Bush.

Barack Obama has thus far spent nearly unimaginable amounts of money in an attempt to wrest control of the First and Second Amendments. If he becomes President in November, will any of the Constitution be safe?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:26 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 07, 2008

Did Ayer's Write Obama's Autobiography?

Author and occasional book doctor/ghostwriter Jack Cahill is making an interesting case that Barack Obama did not write Dreams From My Father.

As if that wasn't an explosive enough charge, Cahill makes the case that Bill Ayers was the ghostwriter of Dreams, and notes many similarities between Obama's book, and Ayer's quasi-fictional book released at roughly the same time about his role as a terrorist in the Weather Underground, Fugitive Days.

A taste from one of the six articles Cahill has written on the topic thus far.

Dreams melds two styles: one, a long-winded accounting of conversations and events, polished just well enough to pass muster; the second, a fierce, succinct and tightly coiled analysis of the events that have been related.

Fugitive Days is fierce, succinct and tightly coiled throughout. It lacks the sometimes tedious fluff of Dreams and is the better book.

In the way of background, Ayers and Obama both grew up in comfortable white households and have struggled to find an identity as righteous black men ever since.

Just as Obama resisted "the pure and heady breeze of privilege" to which he was exposed as a child, Ayers too resisted "white skin privilege" or at least tried to.

"I also thought I was black," says Ayers only half-jokingly. He read all the books Obama did—James Baldwin, Leroi Jones, Richard Wright, The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

As proof of his righteousness, Ayers named his first son "Malik" after the newly Islamic Malcolm X and the second son "Zayd" after Zayd Shakur, a Black Panther killed in a shootout that claimed the life of a New Jersey State Trooper.

Tellingly, Ayers, like Obama, began his careers as a self-described "community organizer," Ayers in inner-city Cleveland, Obama in inner-city Chicago.

"They talked into the night about children, welfare, schools, crime, rent, gangs, the problems and the life of a neighborhood," Ayers tells us of the poor black folks he tried to organize. Dreams is filled with such encounters.

I don't think that Cahill makes a conclusive case as some have suggested (and he appears to be a bit "off" in som of his other work), but he does make a plausible case here, certainly establishing that the literate terrorist had the shared experiences necessary to step in and provide the words Obama could not find on his own.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:30 AM | Comments (107) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Maybe Obama ghost-wrote Ayers' book?

Posted by: rjm319 at October 07, 2008 09:51 AM (RVJF0)

2 rjm:

lol!

Posted by: ECM at October 07, 2008 10:22 AM (q3V+C)

3 I believe it's spelled "Cashill."

The ghost write is an interesting theory, but probably a bigger challenge than an Annenberg paper trail.

What's the Matter With California? is a funny book!

Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at October 07, 2008 11:05 AM (Oekhl)

4 Those are pretty unconvincing points, don't you think? Maybe the other articles are more incisive, but the first line is a subjective assessment (a guilt by reviewer's style association if you will), and then it just gets muddier from there.

And "comfortable white households?" Wasn't Obama's family forced to take food stamps at one point? And where does this apply to his fearsome "alien" background pointed out in CY's other post? Is Obama a white bourgeois, or is he a black radical? Or is he whatever is scariest at a particular moment?

Lastly, what do their backgrounds, and Ayers affiliation with African-American names and culture, have to do with Ayers writing Obama's book? How do the two connect? Where are the similar passages? The real textual quotes? Where's the connective tissue?

This just seems like an empty analysis, doesn't it?

Posted by: Dan at October 07, 2008 11:27 AM (OC0sg)

5 Read Ayer's Bio, and you're right, very tightly coiled, succinct and well-written. The only problem with it is his unfortunate tendency to use very dated 60's slang, but that's his generation I guess.

BTW, as "Terrorists" the Weather Undergound was about as dangerous as the Shriners. The only people who died as a result of their ops were three members of their own group in 1969, when a bomb accidentally went off.

Posted by: Lev Bronstein at October 07, 2008 12:24 PM (uHiz2)

6 I resist the notion that the Weathermen should be cut slack by virtue of their incompetence. The sad thing is that so few of these pukes got blown up by the Ayers-designed killing machines. The appeal to absurdity might fly though, if Ayers had at some point publicly denounced his actions or at the least refrained from praising them for a decade or two. Sorry, Bill Ayers is quite acurately and fairly described as a domestic terrorist. And "palling around" does not do justice to the professional and political alliance of Obama/Ayers, but that doesn't mean he wrote the book. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think Barry read Ayers book before publication, perhaps Bill would have helped with an edit. But that doesn't square with the notion that Ayers was just some guy Barry would see getting the paper in the morning and in any event, he had no idea of Ayers malignant past which, as everyone knows, was a long time ago. Well, if Barry could magically melt his decades long spiritual relationship with Wright whose Audacity of Hope gag titled his second book it will be nothing to hop in the wayback machine and undo this without any serious consequence. This is not the Bill Ayers I know. Hilarious!

Posted by: megapotamus at October 07, 2008 12:36 PM (LF+qW)

7 Durn Lev

You guys have got that talking point down pretty good I have seen it in about 20 places already today.

Yeah a harmless fuzzball bunch.

As was noted about them the only reason they weren't famous for being a bunch of mass murders is because of their glaring incompetence as bombers, it wasn't for lack of trying.

Posted by: JustADude at October 07, 2008 01:06 PM (1aM/I)

8 On Dan's points: Obama is both - which is clear if you read his books. He spent his high school years living with white middle class grandparents and reading up on black rage material. If Ayers can consider himself both, I think a mixed race Obama can too....no?

On Ayers' kids names, as with the other points, the point the author is making is that Ayers had a background and personality that could mesh well with Obama and tell Obama's story. For example, if you are going to get someone to ghost write a book about Magic Johnson - you'd kinda want someone who knew something about basketball.

But, Dan is right in that - baring financial and contractual records establishing Ayers as a ghost writer - the proof will be in comparison of the texts.

One thing I found interesting in the 2nd article:

"Ayers describes his as “a memory book,” one that deliberately blurs facts and changes identities and makes no claims at history.

Obama says much the same. In Dreams, some characters are composites. Some appear out of precise chronology. Names have been changed. "

I could be mistaken, but I do not believe this is a common literary style in biographies.

That is something that can be checked out -- especially looking around the time the two books were written.

It would also be nice if there were some drafts of Obama's book people could get their hands on. Like from the first contract he signed but failed to fulfill. There must have been drafts of parts of the book submitted, I'd think....

Posted by: usinkorea at October 07, 2008 01:09 PM (eEbAz)

9 For those of us who lived thru the times when the WU was active, especially those of us in the military, knew they were a whole lot more dangerous than Shriners. The SDS/WU and the whole Black Power side of the civil rights movement were busy not only bombing, but rioting and burning down our major cities. It was an ugly, ugly time.

I don't know about the other services, but the Navy instigated new dress codes, no uniforms worn on the street in public, relaxation of the haircut regs so the military could blend in better, etc.

Lev Brontein's remark is not only offensive, it shows how ignorant of facts Obamabots really are.

Posted by: Sara at October 07, 2008 01:29 PM (Wi/N0)

10 Even though I am a leftist, I read only right-wing blogs (Why read stuff I already believe?) Anyway, I'm genuinely curious about something. Why do conservatives condemn an incompetent, and somewhat silly "terrorist" group, who named themselves after a Bob Dylan song, while excusing John McCain, who by his own admission was responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of innocents. Does wearing a uniform give one carte blanche? Or is it because his victims were dark-skinned fioreigners? I'm not trying to bait anyone, I really want to know the conservative view on this.

Posted by: Lev Bronstein at October 07, 2008 01:37 PM (E1H09)

11 Sara, it was an ugly time. As someone once said however, all the bombs the new left set did not equal one single payload from a B-52. The new left "terrorists" never sprayed agent orange, bombed villages, or sent young americans to die for nothing. Good to keep in mind who the real criminals of the time were. They mostly wore suits and lived in DC.

Posted by: Lev Bronstein at October 07, 2008 01:51 PM (E1H09)

12 I love it when Leftists come to comment on the rightist blogs -- because it helps us remember why we're not leftists...

Is there a difference between McCain's bombs and the likes of Ayers? Something besides the pathetic race card thrown out?

Yes. And not just rightists see the difference.

In fact, you're not being able to see them should put the burden of explanation on you - not the vast majority.

Civilization has created rules of war. For a real pacifist, the very thought that you could make rules justifying war might be absurd, but it is a historical reality.

So, if an American soldier dresses in native civilian attire, carries a bomb concealed in a backpack, lays it down in a crowded market place, leaves, and it explodes killing scores of shoppers , it is a war crime (regardless of the skin color of the victims, though you weren't try to race bait...sure...).

If McCain is flying a bomber over a city and drops a bomb meant to hit a concentration of enemy troops - or - say - an enemy tank - located inside a town, and the bomb misses the target and lands at a market place killing scores of non-combatants (civilians), it is not a war crime.

Pacifism is a fine ideology. I don't mind it. But, I find I rarely meet anybody who is a true pacifist.

For example, Mr. Bronstein, do you think the bombing of German or Japanese cities during WWII was a war crime or should have been?

There was a woman in politics in 1941 who tried to get to the microphone in Washington DC the day Congress declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. She wanted to give a speech protesting the declaration. She was a pacifist.

And that I can respect though I think she was dead wrong and if we had followed her advice the world would be a horrible place today to live in.

But, what we get most of the time is pseudo-pacifism that tends to annoy me.

Posted by: usinkorea at October 07, 2008 01:52 PM (Sqo8g)

13 I bet Sara and a lot of veterans (people Lev might consider war criminals) would not say they were fighting for "nothing"...

Posted by: usinkorea at October 07, 2008 01:55 PM (Sqo8g)

14 "Good to keep in mind who the real criminals of the time were."

Translation: Ayers and Black Panthers seeking violence were not the criminals, because they were fighting the good fight. But, US government leaders were criminals, because they were fighting the unjust fight in Vietnam. Street shootings and pipe bombs were justified means of struggle. B-52s bomb drops were not.

Posted by: usinkorea at October 07, 2008 02:02 PM (Sqo8g)

15 Lev, at the risk of mistakenly taking your question seriously, the answer is not complicated. While it is inarguable that the actions of our military in general and McCain in particular did kill and injure people without blame in our conflict with the Nort Vietnamese Communists these people were, as the much maligned term has it, collateral damage. The target is the war-making capacity of the North. Now if you think the right side won in Viet Nam, and the Lefties tend to do so, that doesn't sound like much. If on the other hand, you recognize Communism as the most terrible thing ever to aflict mankind and believe, in the words of the also much maligned GWB, that the liberty and prosperity we enjoy at home is NOT for us alone but is the capacity and birthright of all mankind, well the fight is worth the cost. The Augustine writings on "Just War" spell this out in a moral sense, if you are interested. Our lovely Bill Ayers, in contrast, was hoping to subvert and indeed destroy consensual government as we experience it here in favor of a thug's socialism. It seems Cuba is the foremost model. Perhaps NK. Further, this does not address the explicit policy of our adversaries, then as now, to use our own system of openness against us, again with the naked mission to replace it with Robespierran (at best) practices. The Rosenbergs come to mind from yesteryear. Sheik Khalid Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef are examples of current political jiujitsu of this sort.

Posted by: megapotamus at October 07, 2008 02:02 PM (LF+qW)

16
I don't know if being killed by a terrorist bomb in a backpack is different than a bomb dropped by an Annapolis grad in a flightsuit. I suspect it makes little difference to the victims.

2 million or so Vietnamese died in that war, mostly civilians. I don't think it was the result of a few bombs going astray. It was deliberate policy.

I agree with you that pacifism is a bankrupt ideology, which is why I respect the weathermen and the panthers more than the peaceniks and flower- bearing hippies. The latter took action,and comapred to their enemies showed great restraint.

Posted by: Lev Bronstein at October 07, 2008 02:12 PM (uHiz2)

17 Lev Bronstein: My spouse did 4 tours in Vietnam and not once did he spray Agent Orange, not once did he bomb civilians, and he was proud to do his duty to his country with honor. The anti-war activists prolonged the war, caused far more harm to American servicemen and the South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians than the war did, and frankly, I despise all of them or anyone who supports what they did.

Posted by: Sara at October 07, 2008 02:21 PM (Wi/N0)

18 So, Mr. Bronstein, since Ayers and the Panthers were fighting the good fight, if they had had better means to carry it out, would their higher body count have been justified?

If, say, Ayers had trained people to fly a passenger plane into the Pentagon instead of using an ineffectual pipe bomb, would that have been a justified attack?

If you prefer, we could even change "passenger plane" to "cargo plane".

See. I find people like you fascinating.

The victim sees no difference between a pipe bomb in a backpack and a bomb drop by a military aircraft.

But, Ayers and Black Panthers waging war against the US government are heroes for taking action.

You should simply make a clear declaration at the start of some comment like the first you offered by saying: killing people in a just cause is justified, regardless of the means used, but no means of killing a fellow human is just if the cause is not.

Posted by: usinkorea at October 07, 2008 02:22 PM (Sqo8g)

19 So the military = terrorism? That's the new leftoid talking point? Yeah, that'll play real well outside of the Bay Area and Ann Arbor.

Keep it up, you odious toad.

Posted by: Steve Skubinna at October 07, 2008 02:23 PM (1ii59)

20 Why doesn't someone just ask/pay Don Foster of Vassar College to do a textual analysis of the two books He's the guy that proved the sleazy Joe Klein was the author of "Primary Colors" a decade or so back. If Ayers wrote Dreams From My Father, Foster can prove it.

Posted by: Rajiv Vindaloo at October 07, 2008 02:25 PM (Rn2+D)

21 And you need to read more carefully. You are not agreeing with me when you say pacifism is a bankrupt ideology. I specifically said it was a viable one.

The quote is: "Pacifism is a fine ideology. I don't mind it. But, I find I rarely meet anybody who is a true pacifist."

Posted by: usinkorea at October 07, 2008 02:25 PM (Sqo8g)

22 The anti-war left then is the same as they are today, a bunch of "rich kid radicals" who were self-absorbed, self-centered, and didn't give a damn how many U.S. troops were killed or how many U.S. allies were killed. They were and still are leftists, communists, neo-Stalinists, take no personal responsibility types acting like a bunch of brats in a national temper tantrum. They would have been pathetic, except they were far too dangerous to be ignored since they were domestic terrorists bent on overthrowing the U.S. government. Idiots all of them.

Posted by: Sara at October 07, 2008 02:26 PM (Wi/N0)

23 Communism, in many of it's manifestations has been the most evil system in history, e.g, stalin's russia, North Korea, Cambodia;but comparing these regimes to North Vietnam(or Cuba or Nicaragua) is like comapring Wal-mart to a Dickensian Coal mine.

Terrorism is a similarly vague concept, among many groups using terrorist tactics ahve been our own forefathers (The sons of liberty) the French Resistance,and the founders of Israel. As an Algerian "Terrorist" once said "Give us your b-52 bombers and you can have our (bomb-containing) wicker baskets"

Anyway gotta go, on a civil note the discussions here are more intelligent than right-wing sites are usually given credit for.

Posted by: Lev Bronstein at October 07, 2008 02:26 PM (uHiz2)

24 I also restate one of my first questions:

Was the bombing of German or Japanese cities in WWII a war crime?

Posted by: usinkorea at October 07, 2008 02:27 PM (Sqo8g)

25 From a comment at Just One Minute by Lori:

Have you guys rejected the idea that Ayers was the ghostwriter for Obama's "Dreams From My Father"? It sounds wacky but several people have analyzed Obama's book and the language is similar to Ayers book "Fugitive Days":

Ayers:
"I picture the street coming alive, awakening from the fury of winter, stirred from the chilly spring night by cold glimmers of sunlight angling through the city."

The second from "Dreams":

"Night now fell in midafternoon, especially when the snowstorms rolled in, boundless prairie storms that set the sky close to the ground, the city lights reflected against the clouds."

No opinion myself, just for discussion.

Posted by: Sara at October 07, 2008 02:32 PM (Wi/N0)

26 Some of our forefathers did use terrorism, as John Adams understood when he defended the soldiers in Boston who took part in the Boston Massacre:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Trial_of_the_soldiers

More noble people have understood that the cause itself does not justify the means.

Posted by: usinkorea at October 07, 2008 02:33 PM (Sqo8g)

27 I doubt Adams would have stood up in court for Ayers or Black Panthers, however...

Posted by: usinkorea at October 07, 2008 02:35 PM (Sqo8g)

28 Terrorism is different from guerrilla warfare. Guerrillas try to kill enemy military personnel and collaborator civilians. It is designed to operate with the people, using them as a shield.

Terrorism is an attempt to change politics by killing people. It focuses on civilians - they aren't collateral damage, they are the target. This also includes killing without any objective.

The Weathermen were trying to be guerrillas, but they lacked popular support. Thus, they became terrorists, bombing targets of no real value.

Posted by: OmegaPaladin at October 07, 2008 02:56 PM (xPID4)

29 @Sara
The language sounds nothing alike. For one, the Ayers quote you cited is an imaginative picture, while the Obama quote is description. The sentence structure has no correlation, nor does the language and feel of it.

You people are really barking up the wrong tree.

Posted by: DSB at October 07, 2008 03:09 PM (c2FAa)

30 This whole thing devolves so quickly, and doesn't really address the original point: Did Ayers ghostwrite Obama's book?

So far, the answer seems to be "no," or at least "there's no evidence of it," which means, essentially, "no."

So the original article is false, right? Or at least completely unsubstantiated? Then the whole premise is false right?

So we move on, right? We find other things about McCain or Obama we could discuss in a separate forum, right?

(Oh, btw, the textual quotes above--thanks, Sara--seem similar only in that they have multiple clauses, are a little florid, and describe winter in the inner city. Other than that, they don't seem to be written by the same author, really. Do they?)

Posted by: Dan at October 07, 2008 03:17 PM (OC0sg)

31 Dan,

It's called investigating.

You would expect more already established ground from a TV news report or article in the New York Times or a magazine like Time. But so much of our media is about predicting the future or giving "analysis" of sound bites.

Most of your investigative journalism seems to be going on by people whose primary outlet is the Internet.

And on the internet, they tend to publish their work as they go.

If you want to dismiss the claims out of hand with what is presented so far and chide everyone else for paying attention and not moving on ---

--- well, you could work in the mainstreammedia, because that is what they have been doing with negative items on Obama all along.

I'll stick around to see if there is more to this ghost writing story....

Posted by: usinkorea at October 07, 2008 04:36 PM (vz5Ne)

32 Well, usinkorea,

What you're suggesting is mistaking rumor for fact. The evidence I currently see is that from six articles, the above quote is the best we get.

So rather than believe specious rumor, I'm going to say it's false . . . because there's no evidence to believe it's true, no factual or textual basis to believe it. It's hardly a vicious rumor. It's just baseless.

Though simultaneously base. You can keep holding out for proof, but at this point it looks accusation without documentation. That, I believe, is just smear.

Posted by: Dan at October 07, 2008 04:46 PM (OC0sg)

33 Speaking of strange writers, Naomi Foner wrote Running on Empty, based on Dohrn's story. She's the mother of the Gyllenhaal actors and is the ex-wife of Eric Foner, trendy lefty prof. She knows Ayers pretty well.

Posted by: Rachel Cohen at October 07, 2008 07:04 PM (TYbNs)

34 "the discussions here are more intelligent than right-wing sites are usually given credit for."

Well, if that's the case then it's no thanks to people like you. Your analogies fail but please keep them up - I'm sure that Barakkky's going to make major inroads into the military vote by calling Johnny M. a terrorist.

Read up on what the Communists did to the citizens of Hue in 1968, during Tet. It wasn't a case where conventional weaponry went astray - it was mass murder at close quarters. But that was OK because they were on the "right" side - no? Your moral equivalence is disgusting.

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at October 07, 2008 07:29 PM (1aw/n)

35 Dan,

And I'd say you are being a fatuous as someone who would run screaming that these claims are fact.

You are dismissing something out of hand - which is as bad as someone jumping on some bandwagon that is saying this guy has already proven his case.

It isn't "false" - it is unproven - and a work in progress.

I am not mistaking this as fact.

I am entertaining it as a thesis which the guy has to prove or fall flat.

You are deciding out of the gate he is wrong and telling us we shouldn't even follow up on what the guy has to say.

Posted by: usinkorea at October 07, 2008 07:45 PM (P14GZ)

36 "BTW, as "Terrorists" the Weather Undergound was about as dangerous as the Shriners. The only people who died as a result of their ops were three members of their own group in 1969, when a bomb accidentally went off.

posted by Lev Bronstein at October 7, 2008 12:24 PM"


This is apparently the latest liberal retarded screed being slung around.

I watched the "Wonder Weasle" Colmes last night say exactly the same thing to the toe sucker.

"but did the weather underground actually kill anyone?"

FOX should have fired that googly eyed moron on the spot for that garbage.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 07, 2008 08:51 PM (M+Vfm)

37 Usinkorea--

Let's review the facts. The guy wrote *six* articles, with *zero* verifiable proof. If he read both books, he can just post the relative textual references.

The "investigation" of two books takes what, a weekend? Where's the proof?

There isn't any. The guy's blowing smoke. Six articles. Nothing. What do you want, a 9/11 commission to ignore?

Posted by: Dan at October 07, 2008 10:54 PM (HFVrA)

38 Lev's right: It was only attempted murder. What's the big deal?

Posted by: Jim Treacher at October 07, 2008 11:02 PM (NV3P1)

39 So the Weather Underground killed and terrorized no one so they are no big deal... ummm right.... AlQaeda are also quite adept at killing themselves while making bombs, and sane people don't ignore them just because they are incompetent...

Also, try reading this first hand account...

From the City Journal..
Fire in the Night
The Weathermen tried to kill my family.
30 April 2008

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up “a gentleman named William Ayers,” who “was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that.” Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama’s answer: “The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me.

In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called “Panther 21,” members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of February 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. (Today, of course, we’d call that a car bomb.) A neighbor heard the first two blasts and, with the remains of a snowman I had built a few days earlier, managed to douse the flames beneath the car. That was an act whose courage I fully appreciated only as an adult, an act that doubtless saved multiple lives that night.

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’s 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.

For the next 18 months, I went to school in an unmarked police car. My mother, a schoolteacher, had plainclothes detectives waiting in the faculty lounge all day. My brother saved a few bucks because he didn’t have to rent a limo for the senior prom: the NYPD did the driving. We all made the best of the odd new life that had been thrust upon us, but for years, the sound of a fire truck’s siren made my stomach knot and my heart race. In many ways, the enormity of the attempt to kill my entire family didn’t fully hit me until years later, when, a father myself, I was tucking my own nine-year-old John Murtagh into bed.

Though no one was ever caught or tried for the attempt on my family’s life, there was never any doubt who was behind it. Only a few weeks after the attack, the New York contingent of the Weathermen blew themselves up making more bombs in a Greenwich Village townhouse. The same cell had bombed my house, writes Ron Jacobs in The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. And in late November that year, a letter to the Associated Press signed by Bernardine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife, promised more bombings.

As the association between Obama and Ayers came to light, it would have helped the senator a little if his friend had at least shown some remorse. But listen to Ayers interviewed in the New York Times on September 11, 2001, of all days: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Translation: “We meant to kill that judge and his family, not just damage the porch.” When asked by the Times if he would do it all again, Ayers responded: “I don’t want to discount the possibility.”

Though never a supporter of Obama, I admired him for a time for his ability to engage our imaginations, and especially for his ability to inspire the young once again to embrace the political system. Yet his myopia in the last few months has cast a new light on his “politics of change.” Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends’ and supporters’ violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates, and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country. It is fair, too, to ask what those choices say about Obama’s own beliefs, his philosophy, and the direction he would take our nation.

At the conclusion of his 2001 Times interview, Ayers said of his upbringing and subsequent radicalization: “I was a child of privilege and I woke up to a world on fire.”

Funny thing, Bill: one night, so did I.

Posted by: bmeuppls at October 08, 2008 12:38 AM (lNXkY)

40 I want to commend Confederate Yankee for deleting offensive posts. Why are people inclined to start such ridiculous name calling? Calling Confederate Yankee Constipated n'Krankee is just dumb.

Also, what is with Fox News declaring Obama the winner of the debate? I thought they were on our side. This is ridiculous.

Posted by: Jim at October 08, 2008 12:40 AM (cp4dd)

41 # More proof Ayers ghosted Obama's "Dreams" (9/25/0
# Did Bill Ayers write Obama's "Dreams"? - Part 1 (9/18/0
# Did Bill Ayers write Obama's "Dreams"? - Part 2: Deconstructing the Text (9/19/0
# Did Bill Ayers write Obama's "Dreams"? - Part 3: Why it Matters (9/20/0

That is about 4 posts in less than a week's time.

So, no, I'm not going to conclude he has no evidence and refuse to read any more of what he says about it in the future.

Comparing two books to make a claim of influence takes more than a weekend. I know because I spent a lot of time doing it in college and grad school.

You want to dismiss the man out of hand.

You keep talking about "verifiable proof" - which is often used as a dodge - and if that is what you want to do - then you will be able to do it safely in the end, I'd bet.

What it would likely take to convince you is Ayers going on national TV with a signed and notarized contract dated back to the time the book was written saying Ayers agreed to write it for him.

In a literary comparison, which is what this is, you are not going to get that kind of "proof" - but such comparisons are not "worthless".

Right now, the guy has not made his case. The strongest "evidence" he has going for him so far is the description of the style of each book itself, which as far as I know, was not a common one in memoir writing then or now.

If that is the all the guy ends up showing, then he has blown a lot of smoke for nothing.

However, expecting him to have accomplished his mission so soon is absurd.

Lastly --- the guy says in one of the posts that he is paid by publishers to fix books for publication that aren't quite ready - and he has to work with writers to mask their style to tell their story.

Which means, he is a close reader and makes money at doing what he is claiming Ayers might have done for Obama.

So, I'll give him a chance to make his case.

Posted by: usinkorea at October 08, 2008 12:45 AM (GEbEI)

42 Laura,

Not here. The question was meant to clarify where individuals were coming from.

People have long argued both sides of that issue.

For my part, I agree with the side that said it was not a war crime.

(Nor has a consensus of nations ever codified such as a war crime)

Posted by: usinkorea at October 08, 2008 12:49 AM (GEbEI)

43 Laura,

I will discuss it further here if it does not hijack the thread --- because the discussion is a far tangent from the original post.

Let's see how many people want or don't want to comment on the thread before getting into a specific discussion about bombing in WWII......?

Posted by: usinkorea at October 08, 2008 12:52 AM (GEbEI)

44 And one more note on the Weathermen...

Ayers summed up the Weatherman philosophy as "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents — that's where it's really at."

Speaking to a Weather Underground "war council" in Michigan in 1969, Dohrn gave a three-fingered "fork salute" to mass murderer Charles Manson. Calling Manson's victims the "Tate Eight," Dohrn gloated over the fact that actress Sharon Tate, who was pregnant at the time, had been stabbed with a fork in her womb. "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!"

Sickos....

I wonder what Ayers/Dohrn saw in Manson that made them kindred spirits... and what do they see in Obama, now?

Posted by: bmeuppls at October 08, 2008 01:07 AM (lNXkY)

45 usinkoreajournal.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/
morality-vs-ethics-vs-legality/

I set up a post where Laura and anybody else can kick around the idea of whether or not carpet bombing and/or the use of the atomic bomb in WWII were war crimes or not.

usinkoreajournal.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/
sean-hannity-obama-special-section-2/

On YouTube, you can watch Sean Hannity's Sunday look at Obama's associations. I've seen through the first two segments, and I agreed with negative critics on the 2nd one.

I note that here because - I do believe there is a higher burden of (immediate) proof in a newspaper or magazine article or TV news segment than with a blog.

Posted by: usinkorea at October 08, 2008 02:05 AM (GEbEI)

46 Fugitive days was in many cases panned for its writing style.

As an example, Catherine Maclellan at "the Lamp" had this to say.

An account of revolutionary politics, sex and the sixties, from the insider's perspective of one of its leaders would almost seem to guarantee and exciting read. Sadly, this is not the case with Fugitive Days. It cries out for a co-writer, ghostwriter, or completely different writer to save what would otherwise be compelling material. Ayers' narrative is extremely self-absorbed and the prose is bland, clichéd and cringe-making.

If the books have any common characteristics, perhaps O' or O's ghostwriter was attempting to ape the genre of radical chic tomes previously published. It's also not beyond the pale a professional "fixer" was used on both books. And I certainly could not rule out help or advice from Ayers to his fellow traveler, Obama.

However, I don't really think the books are written by the same people, and certainly don't think Cahill has made any sort of compelling argument to that effect.

Posted by: SarahW at October 08, 2008 09:37 AM (7sl9X)

47 Boy, you guys are reaching. Ayers and Obama just aren't very closely connected, except geographically, which is pretty much what the N.Y. Times piece concluded. By contrast, McCain is tight with many felons from the Nixon era, including Gordon Libby, who did several years for his acts.

In the real world, there are a range of political points of view. It may be political useful to try to claim that Obama is some sort of wild-eyed leftist, but it is pretty pathetic from a political science point of view. I'm reminded of the old stupidity about Hilary Clinton being a Marxist. Well, when I was a kid, your spiritual ancestors were writing articles about how Eisenhower was a communist. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted by: Jim Harrison at October 08, 2008 01:47 PM (mCGV3)

48 Pretty funny, Jim. Gee, the guy who gave Barry his first real job; the guy who was Barry's FIRST fundraiser; the guy who came up with the whole Annenberg Challenge idea, "small schools" indoctrination and all and picked Barry to personally administer this radical slush fund, that's the same as McCain being in elected office when some things you object to occured. Genius. Unvarnished genius.

Posted by: megapotamus at October 08, 2008 03:31 PM (LF+qW)

49 One thing is clear, friends. When the Leftists cannot defend Marx by name, the tide has radically shifted indeed. When they demonstrate studied ignorance of the Marxist origin of their current natterings it is our brief to aid in their education. That is thankless toil but a cruelly entertaining sport.

Posted by: megapotamus at October 08, 2008 03:34 PM (LF+qW)

50 It's difficult to argue with people for whom ignorance is a virtue. What would be an insult to others is a complement to them.

Marxism is a very specific political and economic point of view. If you don't buy into its class-struggle theory of history or share its analysis of capitalism, you just aren't a Marxist. Have any of you guys actually read Capital or even the Communist Manifesto? It wouldn't hurt to know a little European and American history.

It is admittedly hard to pin down something as amorphous as the outlook of an American political party, but the Democrats in the last 100 years have overwhelmingly been political centrists. IF any genuine leftists think that Obama is a leftist, they are going to be very disappointed since his policies are roughly center-right by European standards. On the other hand, measuring things by your radical right-wing point of view makes everybody a Marxist or maybe a Maoist. You have to hew to a pretty narrow set of ideas to count as a real American in the one-party state you guys apparently dream of establishing.

Posted by: Jim Harrison at October 08, 2008 04:12 PM (mCGV3)

51 Jim Harrison-

You make the mistake of judging Senator Obama by the words he now speaks, in the midst of an election campaign.

It is never a good idea to put too much stock in the promises of a politician on the campaign trail, a lover in the throes, or anyone selling you a used car.

If you instead look at the things he's *done*, you will see that while he *now* talks the talk of a centrist, he has long walked the walk of an extreme leftist.

Posted by: Clint at October 08, 2008 05:05 PM (oZ5OG)

52 Clint-

I expect that the difference between our perspectives has little to do with Obama in print vs Obama in action and a lot to do with what "extreme leftist" means in these parts. For example, I expect that universal health care = socialism to you. To me it is more like indoor plumbing as in "why the heck don't we have indoor plumbing in 2008?"

I supported Clinton in the primaries, though I wasn't terribly disappointed that Obama won. One thing about him that looks good to me now and you might even come to see as a plus is Obama's relative youth. We're entering a period in which any president will probably have to take some pretty drastic steps because, ideologies aside, the rules of how the world works are obviously changing. The received wisdom of rightists or leftists--in Obama's case essentially centrists--are probably not going to work very well. In that environment, I'd much rather go with somebody who can still learn, instead of relying on 72-year old who thinks he already knows everything or a dippy weather girl from the frozen North. Anyhow, if McCain wins, it can only be because of race. Absolutely everything else argues for a Democratic victory. Do you really want to ignite a culture war? Under these historical circumstances, I don't think it is patriotic to vote for McCain unless you're sure he's going to lose.

Posted by: Jim Harrison at October 08, 2008 07:02 PM (mCGV3)

53 Jim, in all seriousness... are you studying Obama's history and record with any due diligence at all?

Even purely on an apolitical level Barack Obama is far from qualified to take on such an important executive position as the Presidency, having never been in a position of authority where he was responsible for decision-making. He has simply never led anything... not so much as a cub scout troop, or even a youth soccer team. Feel free to argue his failed chairmanship at the CAC is executive experience if you like, but considering CAC was a trainwreck, and evidence suggests Obama was merely a puppet for Bill Ayers, I don't think you would want to play that card.

Each and every role he has played since entering politics has been that of a member of a group. From his roles in Illinois to his freshman experience in the U.S. Senate, he has shown no initiative to be a leader, even in his committee assignments. Obama has always caucused with his party, has never made a stand in opposition to his party, and has shown himself incapable of compromising with the loyal opposition. Based upon his record, and not his rhetoric, Obama is a consistent, inflexible ideologue... even worse than George Bush, just on the opposite end of the continuum.

Purely from a review of his lack of leadership experience, without examining his politics with any specificity, Barack Obama is shown to be woefully unprepared to be the singularly most important leader of the free world. He simply lacks the resume of even a high school principal.

Of course, when you start to examine other aspects of the man's life, from his political positions, to his choice of associates and mentors, to his ethics, other problems quickly crop up, and more are rapidly emerging.

Politically, we know now that the man you would like to label a centrist actually won his first Illinois seat running as a member of the Chicago New Party, a fact that Obama has sought to obscure, but is now breaking. The New Party is a left wing party comprised of communists, socialists, and black nationalists. Which elements do you suppose he found most appealing?

We know Obama has chosen as mentors over the years a communist under surveillance by the FBI, Frank Marshall Davis. Obama's spiritual leader is a racist, conspiracy-mongering minister that fronts a false Christian cult based upon the teachings of the Black Panthers and Malcolm X, according to the man who created the cult, James Cone. It is a cult that imagines Jesus Christ as a black Marxist, and shouts that if God isn't "black" in spirit, that he should be killed.

Obama's deepest influence in Chicago is the Ayer's family. He is most closely aligned with Bill Ayers, a proud domestic terrorist that is thought responsible for over 30 bombings, and headed an organization that declared war on America, and who less than two years ago, labeled capitalism militant and racist. Should I even get into Bernadine Dohrn, the Charles Manson fan that co-led the Weathermen, who is thought to be responsible for the bombing of a San Francisco police station that killed one officer amd mained others, and who was the hostess at the party that kicked off Obama's career, and who was a co-worker of Michelle Obama?

How many more witnesses to his character would you like? I lave a laundry list of left wing extremists and even a few on the far right that are praying for an Obama victory.

The fact of the matter, Jim, is that there are many, many reasons not to vote for Barack Obama, based upon his utter lack of leadership potential he has shown in the lesser positions he has shown, to his complete lack of executive experience, significant unresolved questions about his character and motivations, etc., etc., etc.

McCain can win--and I believe he will--when people step behind the curtain to vote and suddenly realize that while Barack Obama is certainly exciting, we don't want a pop-star president, we want stability. Barack Obama simply hasn't the record we can trust our nation with.

I don't think McCain is a great candidate either, but John McCain is a known quantity, if occasionally an infuriating one, and we don't have to worry about him screwing things up too badly. He might prove to be a mildly pleasant surprise, or perhaps a slightly disappointing one, but he'll perform well enough to get us through another four years until we find someone better.

It is telling about your character, however that you would try to goad people into voting for Obama out of fear, whether that is the fear of being labeled a racist, or fears of violence that you allude to with your "culture war" reference, or fears that people like will proclaim that voting against him would be unpatriotic.

None of those are reasons to vote for Obama, but they are reasons to wonder about the character of his supporters.

John McCain is going to surprise a lot of people when he becomes president, and while the far left will certainly shriek with rage as the did after the last election, most American's are going to breath a collective sigh of relief.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 08, 2008 08:42 PM (HcgFD)

54 Lack of patriotism on the right is an old story. Ideology trumps loyalty every time. You know perfectly well that McCain is simply a media confection. He was a spoiled brat, a lousy student, and a bad pilot who only stayed in the navy thanks to the miracle of nepotism. Morally speaking, he has been a serial adulterer and treacherous husband. Politically, he has bent to every wind. You know all this things and yet you still support the man, despite the fact that his opponent is obviously superior--trying to tie him to Ayers is simply far fetched. If you actually belief the crap you speak, you need a psychiatrist. If you don't, you need a conscience.

Posted by: Jim Harrison at October 08, 2008 09:01 PM (mCGV3)

55 "He was a spoiled brat, a lousy student, and a bad pilot who only stayed in the navy thanks to the miracle of nepotism."

As opposed to some Hah-vahd Affirmative Action mediocrity. Because, you know, Baracky-boy EARNED his success. He relies on BRAINPOWER - not his half-black hide. Right?

I wonder where those transcripts are? Could it be that Hopeychangey's too modest to show off that amazing intellect of his? The world wonders.

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at October 08, 2008 09:14 PM (1aw/n)

56 "Half black hide" ey? No racism on this site.

Many of my relatives are stone racists from the deep South so I know about racism. What gets me is the ginned up racism of Republicans who might as well be putting out bumper stickers that read AT LEAST HE'S WHITE even thought they aren't even sincere bigot themselves.

Claiming that Obama is somehow the beneficiary of affirmative action would be a lot more convincing if he weren't the most eloquent public speaker since King and Kennedy. How exactly do you fake that?

Anyhow, be honest. Merit and intelligent offend you guys. That's what you had against Gore, wasn't it?

Posted by: Jim Harrison at October 08, 2008 09:24 PM (mCGV3)

57 "You make the mistake of judging Senator Obama by the words he now speaks, in the midst of an election campaign."

BINGO!!

As I noted in my last comment, if you read up on the tactics the Marxists defined for achieving their "change" in society, you will see hiding, subverting, lying, cheating, and so on -- were part of the program.

Free at Google books, you can read "Left Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder by Lenin. It spells it out as plain as day. It is clear this is the type of play book the radical left used (unsuccessfully) from the 1920s on to infiltrate and dominate all kind of social organizations.

Ayers and others shifted from the use of violence when they realized that --- the tipping point all this infiltration was supposed to help build up --- had not been reached even in the 1960s.

Now, we will have Obama coming into the White House with the US government just having taken over a large part of the banking and housing industry.

I hope Obama comes out swinging if he wins. Fight hard for nationalizing health care and the government take over of other sectors of the economy. Fight for the fairness doctrine to shut down venues for opposing ideology.

....We need something to shake the masses out of their doldrums.

Posted by: usinkorea at October 08, 2008 10:24 PM (CZ3/T)

58 What usinkorea wrote isn't an argument. It's a symptom.

I'm no expert on Ayers specifically, but I lived through that era and met many a radical in the Vietnam era. One thing they all had in common was utter contempt for traditional Marxist/Leninism. I knew various old Reds in those days. They couldn't figure out what was up with the kids.

There are very few Marxists of any description around any more. Assuming that Obama or some other normal politician is actually part of a enormous, omnipotent conspiracy would raise the question of why these puppet masters allowed the USSR to fail in the first place if they were so damned clever.

Get help.

Posted by: Jim Harrison at October 08, 2008 10:52 PM (mCGV3)

59 Sure, Jim. Your are laying out the real arguments, right?...

"part of a enormous, omnipotent conspiracy" -- strawman.

"why these puppet masters allowed the USSR to fail" idiotic strawman.

The Saul guy who defined community organizing was clearly working with the same basic society-changing game book as the Lenin title I noted in my last comment.

You can dismiss the entire discussion by saying even the radicals in the 1960s were not true communists if you want, it doesn't hold up.

Ayers describes himself as a communist with a little c - as opposed to a Communist...

.....I guess that is enough for you, right?...

Posted by: usinkorea at October 09, 2008 12:22 AM (CZ3/T)

60 Is the Saul guy you are speaking about Saul Alinsky? If so, I'm not sure why you want to demonize him.

I can under stand why you would be upset at somebody wanting to change society in a way you dislike, but a very great many people are interested in changing society. Indeed, you guys are attempting your own version of community organizing.

I guess community organizing by other people gets in the way of your dream of a one-party state in which all opposition is crushed in the name of patriotic totalitarianism. Some of us aren't fascists, however.

Posted by: Jim Harrison at October 09, 2008 12:58 AM (mCGV3)

61 You aren't fascists? Historically speaking, that doesn't seem to match up with reality...

Marxism and Communism have been wonderful opiates for the masses. The change sounds oh so good. But where do the gulags stand? In the nations who have tried the grand experiment.

From the Wiki entry on the guy:

Alinsky was a critic of mainstream liberalism, which he considered passive and ineffective. In Rules for Radicals, he argued that the most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired ends, and that an intermediate end for radicals should be democracy because of its relative ease to work within to achieve other ends of social justice.

Which matches other quotes I've heard about the guy - and what you find in items like Lenin's criticism of leftists who refused to compromise enough to work within labor unions or a nation's Congress.

So, no, I'm not too thrilled about someone advocating glorious changes when they believe they can use any means necessary to achieve that change and the goal is the eventual overthrow of the democratic and capitalist systems of the nation - when such experiments around the world have led to horrible dictatorships.

Posted by: usinkorea at October 09, 2008 04:09 AM (ZAFh8)

62 Poor Jim Harrison seems to be having some projection issues.


Merit and intelligent offend you guys.


That's Merit and intelligence, slick.


I'm no expert on Ayers specifically, but I lived through that era and met many a radical in the Vietnam era. One thing they all had in common was utter contempt for traditional Marxist/Leninism.


You're right Jim... you aren't an expert on Ayers, by any stretch.

Ayers is indeed a Marxist/Leninist, as his his wife, Bernadine Dohrn. I know someone from Chicago who knows the Dohrn family in specific quite well, and he states she is a stone-cold Leninist the whole way.




I guess community organizing by other people gets in the way of your dream of a one-party state in which all opposition is crushed in the name of patriotic totalitarianism.


It is Barack Obama and the left wing Joyce Foundation that attempted to subvert the Constitution by undermining the Second Amendment, not conservatives.

It is the left wing Nancy Pelosi that wants to control how Congressmen are allowed to use technology to reach their constituents, undermining the First Amendment.

It is the left wing of the Demcratic party that wants to institute the Fairness Doctrine, undermining the First Amendment.

It writers on the far left attempting to gin up fears of a totalitarian state, from Jim himself (oopsie!) to various writers at the Huffington Post, Raw Story, etc.

Go back to your community-based reality, Jim. You obviously cannot function outside of it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 09, 2008 05:35 AM (HcgFD)

63 ""Half black hide" ey? No racism on this site."

Go on, Jimbo. Reach for the only card in your deck - yet another whiny racism accusation. Hope and Change. "Post Racial Politics". Heh.

Did I say anything that isn't true? Face it - your messiah's entire candidacy is built on a physical attribute. His skin has the requisite amount of melanin needed to make guilty whites swoon. It sounds crude because it is crude - nothing but glorified racial tribalism. If it wasn't for that half-black skin covering Obama's body you wouldn't be voting for the man because he would never have been granted the nomination - in fact he likely wouldn't have made it through Harvard or Columbia.

Deep down, you know it. He knows it. Everyone on this blog knows it. But you won't admit it.

Stop ranting about people feeling threatened by 0bama's "intelligence". I'm sure several readers remember how he made incorrect comments about legal precedents after Boumediene v. Bush came down. When reporters asked him to comment on a line of cases dealing with military detainees, he floundered hopelessly. And this from a man who is supposedly a Con law expert! I can't count the number of times left wingers have told Conservatives not to question 0bama's intelligence because of his Constitutional expertise. Perhaps this ignorance explains why he never completed a single article when he was elected Editor of the Law Review. Affirmative Action at work, my friends.

And please, do keep rambling on about Republicans crushing dissent. We all know how the Republicans have been establishing "truth squads" in Missouri. And hiding publicly accessible documents about their candidate's past. Oh, wait...my mistake.

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at October 09, 2008 11:33 AM (1aw/n)

64 I haven't laughed this hard since April Fool's day

Posted by: Elliott at October 09, 2008 05:55 PM (HsaYk)

65 I suspect one reason Obama won't release his college transcripts is that non-media types will question whether or not he had the GPA to warrant an Ivy League education...

Posted by: usinkorea at October 09, 2008 06:53 PM (qo8Bb)

66 John McCain is going to surprise a lot of people when he becomes president

Oh really?

Posted by: D.N. Nation at October 10, 2008 10:16 AM (Ze19B)

67 But since the name 'Ayers' ends in an 's', D.N., the apostrophe would follow the last letter of his name in the possessive construction, e.g. 'Ayers' straw-like ability to make Confederate Yankee grasp at him.'

Posted by: D. Aristophanes at October 10, 2008 10:21 AM (toOrR)

68 certainly establishing that the literate terrorist had the shared experiences necessary to step in and provide the words Obama could not find on his own

oh, certainly.

it's not like Ayers has written dozens of books or anything.

Posted by: cookie monster at October 10, 2008 11:57 AM (+dx2l)

69 Lev Bronstein may have left the building. He misses the point with "the only people who died as a result...". Their clear intention was to kill. Ayers and Dohrn both said, not too long ago, that the only thing they're sorry for is that they didn't do more.

Again: "Why do conservatives condemn an incompetent, and somewhat silly "terrorist" group, who named themselves after a Bob Dylan song, while excusing John McCain, who by his own admission was responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of innocents."

The "silly terrorists" whose main aim was to kill. The accusation against McCain is too reprehensible to consider.

Looks like Lev left just as he was losing big-time to usinkorea. Lev, it's called "moral equivalence", and it just doesn't work.

9ofDiamonds: "He was a spoiled brat, a lousy student, and a bad pilot who only stayed in the navy thanks to the miracle of nepotism."

I don't know about the spoiled brat thing, but I do know that he got better grades that Al Gore (who dropped out of divinity school).

And you just try flying one of those F-102s and let us know how it went.

Posted by: ZZMike at October 10, 2008 01:56 PM (9kYWY)

70 I'm cruising around for the first time to this site and others, and I guess I'm really out of it, because I didn't know that disagreeing with conservatives had put me in a 'persistent vegetative state.' Wow, good to know. And I think that's a really intelligent and helpful approach to building a future together as a democracy. Thanks for sharing...I sincerely hope you don't run the country completely into the ground with your divisiveness.

Posted by: Margaret at October 10, 2008 03:24 PM (Diz/0)

71 "I sincerely hope you don't run the country completely into the ground with your divisiveness."

Because, you know, fantasizing about your opponents' VP pick getting gang-raped is just so durn non-divisive!

HOPE & CHANGE!!!!111!

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at October 10, 2008 09:07 PM (1aw/n)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Man Who Controls Barack Obama

Just a month out from the 2008 Presidential elections, someone at CNN finally to a long, sober look at the carefully choreographed rise of Barack Obama through the staggeringly corrupt world of Chicago politics and thought, " My God, what have we done?"

The resulting panicked report is brutally factual.

Ace has more on the Obama-Ayers relationship. Roger Simon has more on Charles Manson-groupie Bernadine Dohrn's celebrity. I've got more on Obama-Ayers-Dohrn. Hell, I've got an even more damning article I haven't even posted yet that ties it all together.

The take-away?

If Bill Ayer's hands were any further up Barack Obama's backside, we'd have to change the Senator's name to Lambchop.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:45 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.2, elapsed 0.2906 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2354 seconds, 360 records returned.
Page size 319 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.