Thursday, October 30, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Negative Liberties
I was posed the question as to why I write this blog.
The answer is two-fold - the first is to provide Americans supporting McCain/Palin with the intellectual ammunition they need to combat the lies being spread by the Obama/Biden campaign and defend our shared positions in an increasingly hostile political environment - one that seeks to silence conservative values by dismissing them as "partisan talking points."
The second is to provide any individuals who may be undecided or voting for Obama with information on his background and political beliefs. I'm not looking to change any minds - should individuals reading this blog still choose to vote for Obama after learning the truth about his political and socioeconomic beliefs then so be it, but they should do so after learning the truth about him.
Today I'll be working off the second premise. Just yesterday tapes were released of an interview given by Barrack Obama in 2001 in which he discussed his interpretation of the Constitution as it relates to the Civil Rights movement. Take a listen:
In the interview Obama states, in reference to the Warren court, "It wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. At least as it's been interpreted and more important interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf."
That statement, by itself, is not radical; it's actually sound Constitutional analysis. What makes this interview disturbing is that Obama goes on to state that the, "great tragedy of the civil rights movement" was that it was court-centric and got away from "political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change." In completing his thought, he makes clear his belief that the Constitution should contain some form of "positive" liberties and that the inability of the courts to bring about this change means that the necessary change, namely the redistribution of wealth, must come about through alternate means.
What does that mean? It's pure and simple socialism. While his interpretation of the court's decision is not radical, his assertion that the redistribution of wealth is a necessity through any means certainly is.
Now again, this analysis cannot be complete unless viewed through the spectrum of truth provided by Obama's current campaign. Obama has proposed tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 (or $200,000, or $150,000 depending on the day) and tax increases for those making more than $250,000. When paired with his comments relating to "redistribution," these comments come into focus as potentially the most dramatic move toward socialism that our country has witnessed since the early 1930s. What makes this even more striking is that he admitted as much...
Again, if you believe in government-run redistribution of wealth and socialist policies then by all means, vote Obama - just don't act surprised when that's exactly what you get.
The answer is two-fold - the first is to provide Americans supporting McCain/Palin with the intellectual ammunition they need to combat the lies being spread by the Obama/Biden campaign and defend our shared positions in an increasingly hostile political environment - one that seeks to silence conservative values by dismissing them as "partisan talking points."
The second is to provide any individuals who may be undecided or voting for Obama with information on his background and political beliefs. I'm not looking to change any minds - should individuals reading this blog still choose to vote for Obama after learning the truth about his political and socioeconomic beliefs then so be it, but they should do so after learning the truth about him.
Today I'll be working off the second premise. Just yesterday tapes were released of an interview given by Barrack Obama in 2001 in which he discussed his interpretation of the Constitution as it relates to the Civil Rights movement. Take a listen:
In the interview Obama states, in reference to the Warren court, "It wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. At least as it's been interpreted and more important interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf."
That statement, by itself, is not radical; it's actually sound Constitutional analysis. What makes this interview disturbing is that Obama goes on to state that the, "great tragedy of the civil rights movement" was that it was court-centric and got away from "political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change." In completing his thought, he makes clear his belief that the Constitution should contain some form of "positive" liberties and that the inability of the courts to bring about this change means that the necessary change, namely the redistribution of wealth, must come about through alternate means.
What does that mean? It's pure and simple socialism. While his interpretation of the court's decision is not radical, his assertion that the redistribution of wealth is a necessity through any means certainly is.
Now again, this analysis cannot be complete unless viewed through the spectrum of truth provided by Obama's current campaign. Obama has proposed tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 (or $200,000, or $150,000 depending on the day) and tax increases for those making more than $250,000. When paired with his comments relating to "redistribution," these comments come into focus as potentially the most dramatic move toward socialism that our country has witnessed since the early 1930s. What makes this even more striking is that he admitted as much...
Again, if you believe in government-run redistribution of wealth and socialist policies then by all means, vote Obama - just don't act surprised when that's exactly what you get.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Barrack's Constitution
Don't have time to write a commentary on this and probably won't until tomorrow night but with one week and one day left in the Presidential election cycle this audio needs to be heard by every American voting in this election.
On November 4 America will vote. The winner of the election will, on January 20, 2009 swear, to the best of his ability, to, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Today, tapes of an interview given by Senator Barrack Obama in 2001 surfaced in which he claims that the constitution reflects, "the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day." Hard to believe right? Here's the audio.
In an even more shocking statement, Obama said the following...
Again, the audio is here.
Fox News is reporting it, as is Drudge. As of 1:52 p.m. - nothing on CNN, ABCNews, CBSNews or MSNBC's mainpages.
Just one bit of analysis...
When it comes to negative liberties I guess he didn't read the preamble which clearly states some things the government, under the Constitution, should do for it's people, namely, "...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty..."
On November 4 America will vote. The winner of the election will, on January 20, 2009 swear, to the best of his ability, to, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Today, tapes of an interview given by Senator Barrack Obama in 2001 surfaced in which he claims that the constitution reflects, "the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day." Hard to believe right? Here's the audio.
In an even more shocking statement, Obama said the following...
The Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.
And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.
Again, the audio is here.
Fox News is reporting it, as is Drudge. As of 1:52 p.m. - nothing on CNN, ABCNews, CBSNews or MSNBC's mainpages.
Just one bit of analysis...
When it comes to negative liberties I guess he didn't read the preamble which clearly states some things the government, under the Constitution, should do for it's people, namely, "...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty..."
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
How is he gonna' pull it off...
Take good look at this map.
This is how I think the electoral map will look toward the end of the night on November 4.
Colorado is still a contest but their polling has been erratic. Putting them into the McCain column would not change the fact that he would still need to pick up at least two out of the three states I see as undecided to win the election.
If I'm right, based on this map, the electoral vote count will be Obama - 250, McCain - 227. There are three states that I see as "up for grabs" - Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
If McCain sweeps these three states he'll win by 31 electoral votes.
He can afford to lose Virginia. So long as he carries Ohio and Pennsylvania and the map holds he'll be up by five and win the election.
If he loses Ohio McCain goes down by 9, to counteract that he would have to pick-up Nevada, a long shot, to win by 1 electoral vote.
If McCain loses Pennsylvania he stands to lose the election...
Why do I think PA is up for grabs?
Well our elected officials aren't exactly exhibiting a whole lot of faith in the electorate... Rep. Murtha Clarifies 'Racist' Remark, Calls Western Pa. 'Redneck'
The Politico sees a shot...
Fast Eddie is already lining up his excuses...
Obama's internal polling has him up by just two points in PA...
This is how I think the electoral map will look toward the end of the night on November 4.
Colorado is still a contest but their polling has been erratic. Putting them into the McCain column would not change the fact that he would still need to pick up at least two out of the three states I see as undecided to win the election.
If I'm right, based on this map, the electoral vote count will be Obama - 250, McCain - 227. There are three states that I see as "up for grabs" - Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
If McCain sweeps these three states he'll win by 31 electoral votes.
He can afford to lose Virginia. So long as he carries Ohio and Pennsylvania and the map holds he'll be up by five and win the election.
If he loses Ohio McCain goes down by 9, to counteract that he would have to pick-up Nevada, a long shot, to win by 1 electoral vote.
If McCain loses Pennsylvania he stands to lose the election...
Why do I think PA is up for grabs?
Well our elected officials aren't exactly exhibiting a whole lot of faith in the electorate... Rep. Murtha Clarifies 'Racist' Remark, Calls Western Pa. 'Redneck'
The Politico sees a shot...
Fast Eddie is already lining up his excuses...
Obama's internal polling has him up by just two points in PA...
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Get Angry
Two days ago I started a blog on why the liberal talking point, "The whole world hates us," is an absolutely ridiculous non-argument. After reams of research, pouring over immigration and emigration data, digging up obscure quotes and complicated election results I found myself with another long, but ultimately unsatisfying post. It took me a while to understand why, but then it came to me... I was unsatisfied because I was, I am, angry.
For years Democrats have been warning Republicans that we need to maintain a level of respect for the oppostition, that we need to keep an open mind and "reach across the aisle" to get things done. They've been telling us that getting angry, that getting tough on issues and explaining our disagreements with passion and confidence will, "cost Republicans the votes of undecided voters." And all the while they have been the ones setting the angry tone, they have been the ones hiding behind the thin veil of socialism - defining "reaching across the aisle" as compromising our core beliefs to cave to their failed policies and radical social views - even as they accuse us of being too committed to our conservative values.
Well I, for one, am sick of it.
I'm sick about the fact that it has gotten so bad, that we let as dangerous, anti-American, anti-millitary and anit-capitalist individual as Barrack Obama get as close as he has to our highest office. And when we question his policies, his statements, his associations - when we question anything about him, we're told that we're, "injecting race into the process." Meanwhile, we're expected to sit idly by as he and his party attack our country, our character, our finances and our security. Not to mention the terrible attacks launched against one of, if not the most, inspiring women ever to enter the political process.
It angers me because of what he stands for. Barrack Obama's values are radically different than the values held sacred by so much of this country and yet he has been given a pass by the "media," a conglomerate that has served more as wrote propagandists than as independent journalists.
Barrack Obama's values disgust, his lies enfuriate and his arrogance astounds.
DISGUST
Robert George, a professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, prolific writer, former fellow at the United States Supreme Court and proud Catholic, writes that, "Senator Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.
He stated that signing the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first thing he'd do as president.
This is a bill that states, "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability" and will retroactively apply to, "...every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act." It will effectively dismantle, in one fell swoop, every single gain the Pro-Life movement has made in the past forty years and sweep away bans on even the latest forms of Partial Birth abortions.
He argued and voted four times against providing medical care for abortion survivors, childen born of women induced to give birth to "previable" babies in the hope that the child would die during childbirth. When, miraculously, children survived, hospital workers would not provide medical care but instead, would leave them to die on metal shelves in storage closets.
ENFURIATING
But then when Hillary Clinton called him on it, Obama's advisor David Axelrod said, "What he meant was, as a government, he’d be willing and eager to initiate those kinds of talks." While at the same time barrackobama.com said, "Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." But then Obama said, "I think that what I said in response was that I would, at my time and choosing, be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America." Except he didn't say any of that in the debate!
The latest presidential debate featured the following exchange:
Obama: "And 100 percent, John, of your ads — 100 percent of them have been negative."
McCain: "It’s not true."
Obama: "It absolutely is true."
But how about this study which calls out Obama's forceful statement as a complete lie.
Or we could look at a few examples. How about this ad?
Or this one?
How about my personal favorite?
Or what about this one?!
ASTOUNDING
By astiron at 2008-10-19
For years Democrats have been warning Republicans that we need to maintain a level of respect for the oppostition, that we need to keep an open mind and "reach across the aisle" to get things done. They've been telling us that getting angry, that getting tough on issues and explaining our disagreements with passion and confidence will, "cost Republicans the votes of undecided voters." And all the while they have been the ones setting the angry tone, they have been the ones hiding behind the thin veil of socialism - defining "reaching across the aisle" as compromising our core beliefs to cave to their failed policies and radical social views - even as they accuse us of being too committed to our conservative values.
Well I, for one, am sick of it.
I'm sick about the fact that it has gotten so bad, that we let as dangerous, anti-American, anti-millitary and anit-capitalist individual as Barrack Obama get as close as he has to our highest office. And when we question his policies, his statements, his associations - when we question anything about him, we're told that we're, "injecting race into the process." Meanwhile, we're expected to sit idly by as he and his party attack our country, our character, our finances and our security. Not to mention the terrible attacks launched against one of, if not the most, inspiring women ever to enter the political process.
It angers me because of what he stands for. Barrack Obama's values are radically different than the values held sacred by so much of this country and yet he has been given a pass by the "media," a conglomerate that has served more as wrote propagandists than as independent journalists.
Barrack Obama's values disgust, his lies enfuriate and his arrogance astounds.
DISGUST
Robert George, a professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, prolific writer, former fellow at the United States Supreme Court and proud Catholic, writes that, "Senator Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.
He stated that signing the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first thing he'd do as president.
This is a bill that states, "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability" and will retroactively apply to, "...every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act." It will effectively dismantle, in one fell swoop, every single gain the Pro-Life movement has made in the past forty years and sweep away bans on even the latest forms of Partial Birth abortions.
He argued and voted four times against providing medical care for abortion survivors, childen born of women induced to give birth to "previable" babies in the hope that the child would die during childbirth. When, miraculously, children survived, hospital workers would not provide medical care but instead, would leave them to die on metal shelves in storage closets.
ENFURIATING
But then when Hillary Clinton called him on it, Obama's advisor David Axelrod said, "What he meant was, as a government, he’d be willing and eager to initiate those kinds of talks." While at the same time barrackobama.com said, "Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." But then Obama said, "I think that what I said in response was that I would, at my time and choosing, be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America." Except he didn't say any of that in the debate!
The latest presidential debate featured the following exchange:
Obama: "And 100 percent, John, of your ads — 100 percent of them have been negative."
McCain: "It’s not true."
Obama: "It absolutely is true."
But how about this study which calls out Obama's forceful statement as a complete lie.
Or we could look at a few examples. How about this ad?
Or this one?
How about my personal favorite?
Or what about this one?!
ASTOUNDING
By astiron at 2008-10-19
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Terrorist
A lot has been made about Bill Ayers lately and you may be wondering why. After all most of the main-stream media outlets have been painting this as a last-ditch effort to steal the election from Obama with less than a month before the election but while this issue may be "new" to many independents and Obama supporters it comes as no surprise to those of us who have been watching this campaign for literally years now - the only question we have is, what took so long?
A few months ago a friend and Obama supporter asked me if I thought Barrack Obama loved his country, I said, "No." Bill Ayers is a big reason why I believe that.
Who is Bill Ayers?
Bill Ayers grew up in a life of privilege. His father was Thomas Ayers was President (1964-1980) and CEO (1973-1980) of Commonwealth Edison. He served as the Chairman of several the Boards, most notably at Northwestern and the Chicago Symphony, and sat on the Boards of a number of other successful businesses including Sears, Zenith and the Chicago Cubs.
His son Bill attended public school until High School when he transferred to the prestigious Lake Forest Academy. He went on to earn his B.A. in American studies from his mother, father & older brother's alma mater, the University of Michigan. Upon graduation he took a job teaching at a small, private, primary school that subscribed to the Summerhill method of teaching, a method that encouraged cooperation over competition and did not believe in issuing report cards or grades. Ayers became the director of the school at the age of twenty-one. Shortly after that he spent his first ten days in jail for participating in a sit-in at a local draft board.
In 1968 Ayers became involved with the New Left and the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). When the SDS collapsed in 1969, Ayers and several former SDS members founded a group known as the Weathermen or the Weather Underground. By his own admission in his book "Fugitive Days" Ayers notes that he was responsible for the Weathermen's move toward militancy which first manifested itself in the form of riots known as the "Days of Rage" which took place in 1969 in coordination with the trial of the Chicago Eight, the alleged masterminds behind the 1968 riots held in coordination with the Democrats' National Convention.
In 1969 Ayers planted and detonated his very first bomb, destroying a statue dedicated to police officers killed in the line of duty. According to an FBI informant operating within the Underground, reported that Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, "probably had the most authority within the Weathermen."
In 1970, while assembling a crude anti-personnel device in the basement of a townhouse in Greenwich Village, an accidental detonation killed three members of the Weather Underground including Ayers' girlfriend Diana Oughton and his roommate Terry Robbins. The device they were building was made of dynamite and roofing nails and, according to Mark Rudd, a leading activist in the SDS, was destined for Fort Dix, where it was to be detonated in the midst of a dance for troops headed to Vietnam and their dates.
Following the explosion, Ayers and Dohrn went underground along with several other associates. While living as a fugitive, Ayers continued his terror campaign. His highest profile bombings took place at New York City Police Headquarters, the United States Capitol and the Pentagon. Other actions by the Weathermen included but are not limited to:
December, 1969 - Bombing of Chicago police cars
March, 1970 - Breaking Timothy Leary out of jail
May, 1970 - Bombing National Guard HQ in Washington, D.C.
July, 1970 - Bombing MP Headquarters at Presidio Army Base
August, 1971 - Bombing several California prisons and Department of Corrections offices
March, 1974 - Bombing the San Francisco Federal Office of Health, Education & Welfare
January, 1975 - Bombing the United States State Department
September, 1975 - Bombing the Kennecott Corporation in Salt Lake City
Miraculously no one was killed in these attacks. The Weather Underground did the people in the buildings they bombed the "favor" of calling ahead before they detonated their devices.
The FBI put Ayers and Dohrn on their Most Wanted List (#2 & #1 respectively) but according to CNN, "Riot and bomb conspiracy charges against Ayers were dropped in 1974, and he is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago."
The end. Right? Not exactly.
The reason that the charges were dropped was not because Ayers was innocent, quite the contrary. The charges were dropped because the FBI obtained the evidence against Dohrn and Ayers through illegal wiretaps.
They resurfaced in 1980, cleared of all charges. Since then they have lived in Chicago - Ayers is a wealthy college professor and author.
In 2001, before the September 11 attacks, Ayers published his memoirs: Fugitive Days. While publicizing the book he was asked numerous times if he was sorry for his actions. The New York Times quoted him as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I don't feel we did enough."
In an article in the Chicago Tribune Magazine Dohrn bragged, "I was at the top of my field. I was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list."
Later in the same interview Ayers is quoted as saying, "The truth is, we weren't extreme enough in fighting against the war, and we weren't extreme enough in fighting racism, which is still a stain on America."
The Obama Connection
So what does any of this have to do with Barrack Obama? After all, Obama, when asked about Ayers responded, "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood."
As a young lawyer and professor seeking the approval of his Chicago community and running for state office Obama, like many young, aspiring politicians, crafted a number of key alliances and placed himself at the forefront of as many charitable organizations as possible. Chief among these charitable organization was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). The founders of The CAC were Warren Chapman, Anne Hallett and Bill Ayers. The three were responsible for getting the organization off the ground and hand picked its initial board including its first chairman, Barrack Obama.
What took place in those initial meetings? No one is saying and those who are looking aren't getting very far. In August, Stanley Kurtz, a conservative journalist who writes for National Review, sought to access the CAC records held at the University of Illinois at Chicago library. He made the request, was granted access, arranged for the day and time of the meeting, then, the day he was to leave for Chicago, received a call from the library telling him that a "donor" had asked that the records not be opened.
Obama and Ayers met regularly in regard to the CAC between 1997 and 1999 and dozens of times more as board members of the Chicago Woods Fund between 1999 and 2002. During that time, they appeared together on at least two academic panels in 1997 and 2002. Obama even reviewed one of Ayers' books for the Chicago Tribune.
But let's go back to the CAC - how did he get to be chairman of the board at such a young age and with so little experience?
In 1995, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn held a political meeting in their home. The purpose of this meeting was reportedly so that Obama's predecessor, Alice Palmer, could introduce her chosen successor. The only problem is that Palmer later decided that she didn't want to step down and when she tried to reenter the race, Obama and his campaign contested the signatures on her petition to run and had her disqualified. For good measure, he had all of the other candidates thrown out of the race as well. In the end, he ran unopposed.
Palmer's not commenting on the meeting or the Ayers/Dohrn/Obama connection. She's not commenting on much of anything relating to Barrack Obama any more. This campaign cycle, Palmer actively campaigned for Hillary Clinton.
Obama's "Explanation?"
According to Reuters, "Obama has called Ayers, now a professor of education at a university in Chicago, "a guy in my neighborhood" and said he and Ayers are not close. McCain is trying to score "cheap political points" by bringing up Ayers, Obama told ABC News on Wednesday."
He calls Ayers' acts "detestable" then mentions that he was eight years old when they took place.
Actually, in 1975 Obama was 15. Funny. I was about the same age when they caught the Unabomber...
Post-Script
The best reporting on this issue came from, beleive it or not, CNN - Anderson Cooper 360, just the other night. Check it out:
A few months ago a friend and Obama supporter asked me if I thought Barrack Obama loved his country, I said, "No." Bill Ayers is a big reason why I believe that.
Who is Bill Ayers?
Bill Ayers grew up in a life of privilege. His father was Thomas Ayers was President (1964-1980) and CEO (1973-1980) of Commonwealth Edison. He served as the Chairman of several the Boards, most notably at Northwestern and the Chicago Symphony, and sat on the Boards of a number of other successful businesses including Sears, Zenith and the Chicago Cubs.
His son Bill attended public school until High School when he transferred to the prestigious Lake Forest Academy. He went on to earn his B.A. in American studies from his mother, father & older brother's alma mater, the University of Michigan. Upon graduation he took a job teaching at a small, private, primary school that subscribed to the Summerhill method of teaching, a method that encouraged cooperation over competition and did not believe in issuing report cards or grades. Ayers became the director of the school at the age of twenty-one. Shortly after that he spent his first ten days in jail for participating in a sit-in at a local draft board.
In 1968 Ayers became involved with the New Left and the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). When the SDS collapsed in 1969, Ayers and several former SDS members founded a group known as the Weathermen or the Weather Underground. By his own admission in his book "Fugitive Days" Ayers notes that he was responsible for the Weathermen's move toward militancy which first manifested itself in the form of riots known as the "Days of Rage" which took place in 1969 in coordination with the trial of the Chicago Eight, the alleged masterminds behind the 1968 riots held in coordination with the Democrats' National Convention.
In 1969 Ayers planted and detonated his very first bomb, destroying a statue dedicated to police officers killed in the line of duty. According to an FBI informant operating within the Underground, reported that Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, "probably had the most authority within the Weathermen."
In 1970, while assembling a crude anti-personnel device in the basement of a townhouse in Greenwich Village, an accidental detonation killed three members of the Weather Underground including Ayers' girlfriend Diana Oughton and his roommate Terry Robbins. The device they were building was made of dynamite and roofing nails and, according to Mark Rudd, a leading activist in the SDS, was destined for Fort Dix, where it was to be detonated in the midst of a dance for troops headed to Vietnam and their dates.
Following the explosion, Ayers and Dohrn went underground along with several other associates. While living as a fugitive, Ayers continued his terror campaign. His highest profile bombings took place at New York City Police Headquarters, the United States Capitol and the Pentagon. Other actions by the Weathermen included but are not limited to:
December, 1969 - Bombing of Chicago police cars
March, 1970 - Breaking Timothy Leary out of jail
May, 1970 - Bombing National Guard HQ in Washington, D.C.
July, 1970 - Bombing MP Headquarters at Presidio Army Base
August, 1971 - Bombing several California prisons and Department of Corrections offices
March, 1974 - Bombing the San Francisco Federal Office of Health, Education & Welfare
January, 1975 - Bombing the United States State Department
September, 1975 - Bombing the Kennecott Corporation in Salt Lake City
Miraculously no one was killed in these attacks. The Weather Underground did the people in the buildings they bombed the "favor" of calling ahead before they detonated their devices.
The FBI put Ayers and Dohrn on their Most Wanted List (#2 & #1 respectively) but according to CNN, "Riot and bomb conspiracy charges against Ayers were dropped in 1974, and he is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago."
The end. Right? Not exactly.
The reason that the charges were dropped was not because Ayers was innocent, quite the contrary. The charges were dropped because the FBI obtained the evidence against Dohrn and Ayers through illegal wiretaps.
They resurfaced in 1980, cleared of all charges. Since then they have lived in Chicago - Ayers is a wealthy college professor and author.
In 2001, before the September 11 attacks, Ayers published his memoirs: Fugitive Days. While publicizing the book he was asked numerous times if he was sorry for his actions. The New York Times quoted him as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I don't feel we did enough."
In an article in the Chicago Tribune Magazine Dohrn bragged, "I was at the top of my field. I was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list."
Later in the same interview Ayers is quoted as saying, "The truth is, we weren't extreme enough in fighting against the war, and we weren't extreme enough in fighting racism, which is still a stain on America."
The Obama Connection
So what does any of this have to do with Barrack Obama? After all, Obama, when asked about Ayers responded, "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood."
As a young lawyer and professor seeking the approval of his Chicago community and running for state office Obama, like many young, aspiring politicians, crafted a number of key alliances and placed himself at the forefront of as many charitable organizations as possible. Chief among these charitable organization was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). The founders of The CAC were Warren Chapman, Anne Hallett and Bill Ayers. The three were responsible for getting the organization off the ground and hand picked its initial board including its first chairman, Barrack Obama.
What took place in those initial meetings? No one is saying and those who are looking aren't getting very far. In August, Stanley Kurtz, a conservative journalist who writes for National Review, sought to access the CAC records held at the University of Illinois at Chicago library. He made the request, was granted access, arranged for the day and time of the meeting, then, the day he was to leave for Chicago, received a call from the library telling him that a "donor" had asked that the records not be opened.
Obama and Ayers met regularly in regard to the CAC between 1997 and 1999 and dozens of times more as board members of the Chicago Woods Fund between 1999 and 2002. During that time, they appeared together on at least two academic panels in 1997 and 2002. Obama even reviewed one of Ayers' books for the Chicago Tribune.
But let's go back to the CAC - how did he get to be chairman of the board at such a young age and with so little experience?
In 1995, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn held a political meeting in their home. The purpose of this meeting was reportedly so that Obama's predecessor, Alice Palmer, could introduce her chosen successor. The only problem is that Palmer later decided that she didn't want to step down and when she tried to reenter the race, Obama and his campaign contested the signatures on her petition to run and had her disqualified. For good measure, he had all of the other candidates thrown out of the race as well. In the end, he ran unopposed.
Palmer's not commenting on the meeting or the Ayers/Dohrn/Obama connection. She's not commenting on much of anything relating to Barrack Obama any more. This campaign cycle, Palmer actively campaigned for Hillary Clinton.
Obama's "Explanation?"
According to Reuters, "Obama has called Ayers, now a professor of education at a university in Chicago, "a guy in my neighborhood" and said he and Ayers are not close. McCain is trying to score "cheap political points" by bringing up Ayers, Obama told ABC News on Wednesday."
He calls Ayers' acts "detestable" then mentions that he was eight years old when they took place.
Actually, in 1975 Obama was 15. Funny. I was about the same age when they caught the Unabomber...
Post-Script
The best reporting on this issue came from, beleive it or not, CNN - Anderson Cooper 360, just the other night. Check it out:
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Principle
This week's Vice Presidential debate was less about substance and more about principle. Senator Biden flexed his experience and clearly dominated in the arenas of foreign affairs and inside-the-beltway know-how. Governor Palin fired back with details regarding her executive experience and an advanced understanding of energy issues.
Though many saw Senator Biden coming across as more "presidential," their argument falls apart when you point out that his forceful stances on many of the substantive issues were exagerations (in the case of Senator McCain's health care and tax record and plans), lies (Obama did agree to meet with Ahmadinejad without precondition) or significant yet unexplained flip-flops (the campaign's clean coal, off-shore drilling & nuclear policies to name three). Critics of Governor Palin point to the fact that Biden was undoubtably "holding-back" and how would Palin fare sitting across the negotiating table from a Vladimir Putin.
In the end, the same partisan lines held - if you loved Sarah, you still love her; if you thought Biden was a blowhard, you probably still think so. So what about those folks in the middle the "undecideds," what could this debate meant to them?
To me, in analyzing this competition, it came down to the core principles held by each candidate. Standing across the stage from each other were two individuals on polar opposite ends of the political spectrum and analyzing their core beleifs, the very stuff that makes them think and vote and govern the way that they do, is wildly interesting. For example...
In regards to the sub-prime lending crisis...
Governor Palin took the route of personal accountability. She placed a portion of the blame on predatory lenders, committed her ticket to increased regulation of financial markets, but also stressed that personal accountability on behalf of the consumer, a commitment to staying out of personal debt to educating ourselves about the economy, was the best way to avoid another crisis.
Senator Biden simply advocated more government control over the economy, at one point suggesting that bankrupcy courts should be able to adjust not only your mortgage interest rate but also your principle balance; a policy that, if implemented, would lead to the socialization of the entire mortgage industry.
In regards to taxes, Governor Palin pointed out that Senator Biden stated paying taxes was "patriotic." Senator Biden did not refute his stance, in fact, he went on to claim that a tax policy placing an significantly larger burden on families earning over $250,000 (increasing taxes to levels implemented by Jimmy Carter) was simply "fairness."
Palin stuck to her ticket's commitment to keep tax levels right where they are and advanced the traditionally conservative belief that the best way to spur economic growth was by lowering taxes on American workers and businesses while reigning in spending and promoting energy independence with an "all-of-the-above" approach.
Biden mocked the free-market approach to incentivizing businesses to drive progress as we've been doing in this country for 200+ years, Palin suggested her faith in it.
Palin pointed out McCain's once unpopular commitment to the strategy now succeeding in Iraq, Biden tried to dance around his on-again-off-again approach to the war and his running-mate's stuborn inability to accept its success.
Time and time again the candidates reinforced the ideals of their party's stated principles.
Biden - bigger government, more taxes, socializing economic markets, a commitment to defeat in Iraq
Palin - smaller governement, less taxes, common-sense regulation, a commitment to victory in Iraq
While their substance ran about equal, their principles could not be more different. And after tall, that's what this election has been about form the beginning.
Debate Transcript: The Sun Times
Though many saw Senator Biden coming across as more "presidential," their argument falls apart when you point out that his forceful stances on many of the substantive issues were exagerations (in the case of Senator McCain's health care and tax record and plans), lies (Obama did agree to meet with Ahmadinejad without precondition) or significant yet unexplained flip-flops (the campaign's clean coal, off-shore drilling & nuclear policies to name three). Critics of Governor Palin point to the fact that Biden was undoubtably "holding-back" and how would Palin fare sitting across the negotiating table from a Vladimir Putin.
In the end, the same partisan lines held - if you loved Sarah, you still love her; if you thought Biden was a blowhard, you probably still think so. So what about those folks in the middle the "undecideds," what could this debate meant to them?
To me, in analyzing this competition, it came down to the core principles held by each candidate. Standing across the stage from each other were two individuals on polar opposite ends of the political spectrum and analyzing their core beleifs, the very stuff that makes them think and vote and govern the way that they do, is wildly interesting. For example...
In regards to the sub-prime lending crisis...
Governor Palin took the route of personal accountability. She placed a portion of the blame on predatory lenders, committed her ticket to increased regulation of financial markets, but also stressed that personal accountability on behalf of the consumer, a commitment to staying out of personal debt to educating ourselves about the economy, was the best way to avoid another crisis.
Senator Biden simply advocated more government control over the economy, at one point suggesting that bankrupcy courts should be able to adjust not only your mortgage interest rate but also your principle balance; a policy that, if implemented, would lead to the socialization of the entire mortgage industry.
In regards to taxes, Governor Palin pointed out that Senator Biden stated paying taxes was "patriotic." Senator Biden did not refute his stance, in fact, he went on to claim that a tax policy placing an significantly larger burden on families earning over $250,000 (increasing taxes to levels implemented by Jimmy Carter) was simply "fairness."
Palin stuck to her ticket's commitment to keep tax levels right where they are and advanced the traditionally conservative belief that the best way to spur economic growth was by lowering taxes on American workers and businesses while reigning in spending and promoting energy independence with an "all-of-the-above" approach.
Biden mocked the free-market approach to incentivizing businesses to drive progress as we've been doing in this country for 200+ years, Palin suggested her faith in it.
Palin pointed out McCain's once unpopular commitment to the strategy now succeeding in Iraq, Biden tried to dance around his on-again-off-again approach to the war and his running-mate's stuborn inability to accept its success.
Time and time again the candidates reinforced the ideals of their party's stated principles.
Biden - bigger government, more taxes, socializing economic markets, a commitment to defeat in Iraq
Palin - smaller governement, less taxes, common-sense regulation, a commitment to victory in Iraq
While their substance ran about equal, their principles could not be more different. And after tall, that's what this election has been about form the beginning.
Debate Transcript: The Sun Times
You Need to Know More...
The worst gaffes made by the candidates during the Vice Presidential debate?
Palin called the U.S. commander in Afghanistan "McClelland," his name is McKiernan.
Biden, a constitutional law professor & lawyer, identified Article I of the Constitution as the section laying out Executive Powers -- it's Article II.
I know I promised only two, but there's one more Biden gaffe worth mentioning. Biden invited the people of the electorate to, "go to Katie's Restaurant" with him. Problem is, according to Mike Krystopolski of Wilmington, Delaware, Katie's Restaurant closed about twenty years ago... Here's a Wilmington blog addressing the gaffe.
Stuff you Should Be Reading (or watching)
The McCain Campaign is finally talking about the Bill Ayers issue... REDSTATE.COM
The truth about the bailout and its root causes... REAL CLEAR POLITICS
...and VIDEO...
An excellent analysis of Governor Palin's performance during the debate... NATIONAL REVIEW
Earlier this week the Foreign Ministers of Venezuela and Iran got together for a friendly meeting... PHOTO
Palin called the U.S. commander in Afghanistan "McClelland," his name is McKiernan.
Biden, a constitutional law professor & lawyer, identified Article I of the Constitution as the section laying out Executive Powers -- it's Article II.
I know I promised only two, but there's one more Biden gaffe worth mentioning. Biden invited the people of the electorate to, "go to Katie's Restaurant" with him. Problem is, according to Mike Krystopolski of Wilmington, Delaware, Katie's Restaurant closed about twenty years ago... Here's a Wilmington blog addressing the gaffe.
Stuff you Should Be Reading (or watching)
The McCain Campaign is finally talking about the Bill Ayers issue... REDSTATE.COM
The truth about the bailout and its root causes... REAL CLEAR POLITICS
...and VIDEO...
An excellent analysis of Governor Palin's performance during the debate... NATIONAL REVIEW
Earlier this week the Foreign Ministers of Venezuela and Iran got together for a friendly meeting... PHOTO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)