The William Ayers plan to turn America’s schoolchildren into Maoists and how Barack Obama helped him
By Pundita on May 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM in Annenberg Chicago Challenge, Current Affairs
[REPRINTED from the great blog, RezkoWatch, with its express permission.]
_________________________
The following was masterfully researched and written by Pundita. Sadly, it is not another faerie tale.
Characterizing the Weatherman as “an American Red Army,” Ayers summed up the organization’s ideology as follows: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents.” (1)
[In 2006 Ayers] continued to rail against his exclusion from the conference in an interview with the house organ of the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, an interview printed right alongside some of the memorable sayings of the party’s Chairman for Life, Bob Avakian. Ayers complained to the RCP interviewer that the conference organizers were “taking the teeth out of the [progressive education] critique” and trying instead to “present progressive education as something nice and familiar.” (2)
In April 2008 Sol Stern, one of those tiresome ex-Leftists who do penance by ratting out former fellow travelers, dropped a bombshell on New York City’s intellectual establishment:
[William] Ayers’s politics have hardly changed since his Weatherman days. He still boasts about working full-time to bring down American capitalism and imperialism. This time, however, he does it from his tenured perch as Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Instead of planting bombs in public buildings, Ayers now works to indoctrinate America’s future teachers in the revolutionary cause, urging them to pass on the lessons to their public school students.(3)
It gets even more interesting—but here I pause to recount the intellectual establishment’s immediate reaction, which to quote Mark Steyn in a somewhat different context, was sprayed coffee, steaming pants and scalded crotches.
Yes, all over Manhattan’s Upper West Side cheerful Starbucks assistants ran around mopping latte sprays from laptop screens and handing out wads of paper napkins to customers howling in pain.
It’s not as if the intelligentsia didn’t already know that William Ayers was bent on transforming American schoolchildren into Manchurian Candidates. That was old news because in 2006 Sol Stern had publicized Ayers’s education work.(4) The stunner was that Stern was not going to keep his mouth shut about Ayers during Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
Now we’ll return to Sol hurling thunderbolts:
Indeed, the education department at the University of Illinois is a hotbed for the radical education professoriate. As Ayers puts it in one of his course descriptions, prospective K–12 teachers need to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation.”
Here I pause to clarify a smoggy term. Just what is “social justice?”
For the tourists, social justice means finding ways to make society more just for all. For William Ayers and other American pedagogical versions of the Weather Underground, social justice ‘education’ means using every subject taught in public school, including math and science, as a means to teach children that capitalism is evil and that anyone who supports the American way of life is going straight to hell.
Yet as Steve Diamond points out, Ayers and his fellow “authoritarian” Leftists in the teaching profession hide behind the generally understood concept of social justice. “… a meaningless [term] because the minute you challenge advocates of this approach they sound like Mom and Apple Pie liberals.”(5)
What exactly is an “authoritarian” Leftist? I plan to write Professor Diamond to ask him that very question. But as near as I can figure, it seems to be his polite term for communists working toward the day when the last capitalist will be strangled to death with the guts of the last lily-livered socialist.
For those of us who’ve paid no attention to what American education experts have been up to in recent years:
Ayers’s texts on the imperative of social-justice teaching are among the most popular works in the syllabi of the nation’s ed schools and teacher-training institutes. One of Ayers’s major themes is that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony. Thus, the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turn them into laboratories of revolutionary change.
Here I’ll pause Sol’s narrative, so readers who have seen Barack Obama’s most ardent followers can wipe coffee spray from their computer screen.
Yes, it’s entirely possible that some of the youngest Obamatons were stuffed full of social justice teachings based on textbooks written by an unrepentant Maoist terrorist.
Better set your coffee away from the computer because we’re about to follow Sol Stern into the Twilight Zone:
Unfortunately, neither Obama nor his critics in the media seem to have a clue about Ayers’s current work and his widespread influence in the education schools. In his last debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama referred to Ayers as a “professor of English,” an error that the media then repeated. Would that Ayers were just another radical English professor. In that case, his poisonous anti-American teaching would be limited to a few hundred college students in the liberal arts. But through his indoctrination of future K–12 teachers, Ayers has been able to influence what happens in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of classrooms.
Here, readers who recall my May 6 The truth about Barack Obama’s association with William Ayers… may wonder whether Sol is being coy with regard to what Barack Obama knows about William Ayers.
I wish I could say yes because the alternative explanation — that Sol did not know the truth about the relationship at the time of the April writing — is unsettling to the point of eerie.
Yet given Sol Stern’s concern about William Ayers’s education theories, and also that there is nothing in his 2006 writings about Ayers to suggest Sol knew about the Annenberg Challenge, I think we have to settle for the eerie explanation.
Sol’s piece was published on April 23 by the City Journal, a quarterly magazine of the Manhattan Institute. Only the day before Steve Diamond had blown the lid off the Obama-Ayers relationship with Who “sent” Obama?
[...] in late 1994 or early 1995, Obama made what I think was probably the key move in his early career. He was named Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $50 million grant program to funnel money into reform efforts at Chicago schools. It turns out that the architect of the Annenberg Challenge was Bill Ayers, who designed the grant proposal and shepherded it to success.
In two sentences, Diamond makes a mockery of the claim that Obama and Ayers had only a casual relationship. But again, City Journal is a quarterly publication; Stern’s article was surely submitted days or even weeks before the Spring 2008 volume was published online.
My guess is that prior to Diamond’s investigative report, Obama’s work for the Annenberg Challenge and Ayers’s connection to the grant program were not well known outside a small circle of grant-making organizations/corporations and Chicago public education professionals — although I think one would have to be naive to assume it wasn’t known to the Democratic National Committee by the time Obama was promoted as a candidate for the presidency.
In any case Obama knew Ayers so well, was so familiar with Ayers’s professional work, that terming him an “English” teacher was not a mistake; it was an attempt to suggest to the public that his relationship with Ayers was casual.
Diamond’s report makes it clear that the relationship was close and work-related over a period of years. And it’s clear from Obama’s willingness to work for Ayers’s pet project that he was in general agreement with Ayers’s political philosophy and approach to public education.
To send you on your way with a spring in your step I’ll quote a few more passages from Stern’s April 2008 article, although I hope you’ll go to City Journal and read the whole thing:
Ayers’s influence on what is taught in the nation’s public schools is likely to grow in the future. Last month, he was elected vice president for curriculum of the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association (AERA), the nation’s largest organization of education-school professors and researchers. Ayers won the election handily, and there is no doubt that his fellow education professors knew whom they were voting for.
In the short biographical statement distributed to prospective voters beforehand, Ayers listed among his scholarly books Fugitive Days, an unapologetic memoir about his ten years in the Weather Underground. The book includes dramatic accounts of how he bombed the Pentagon and other public buildings.
Recently on Fox News, Democratic strategist Bob Beckel tried to brush off concerns about Obama’s relationship with a “terrorist” by retorting, “Ayers is a couple years away from an assisted living facility.”
Either Beckel didn’t know or didn’t care that it’s not Ayers’s past but his present that should be of immediate urgent concern when asking about Obama’s political views. America’s parents need to know about Ayers’s education ideas and true relationship with a man in sight of the White House. Ditto for American captains of industry and capitalist financiers who are throwing money at Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
Endnotes
Diamond’s discussion is a portal to a world that for all its grave importance to Americans exists outside the general public’s eye. The post links to Sol Stern’s piece for City Journal, Ayers’s reply, and a discussion of social justice by people in the education sphere.
:::::::::::::::::::
[REPRINTED from the great blog, RezkoWatch.]
_________________________
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
I just read this a while ago–his friends blow my mind. It’s like they are all terrorists/criminals/ or low lifes. Won’t the GOP have fun with this stuff?
I’m confused.
Yesterday, Obama was the apostate Muslim.
Today, he’s a Communist.
Several days ago, along with his wife, he was a racist black radical and somewhere, someone has a video to prove this and a million bucks goes to the person who can
bribe superdelegates for Clintonproduce the video so that it can be used against McCain.Am I on the right track yet?
Your train is on the track to Obamablivion. Now click your Obama supplied ruby slippers three times and celestial choirs will sing praises for your new deity-in-chief Obama. You seriously think he will ever be given control over “the button?”
It’s not that hard. The “the apostate Muslim” is likely how the Islamic radicals will percieve him. It says nothing about his beliefs other than he is not a devout Muslim.
AS for the “racist black radical” and “communist” labels, they are not incompatible. Black Liberation Theory is fundamentally Marxist, though it rejects Marx’s atheism and replace it with a racism based on a misreading of Biblical texts.
You know, yesterday I came back to this site after not thinking about it since the whole deal with the nuke accidentally being flown across the country. I don’t know that I can express my surprise at how much it’s devolved into crazy in such a short period of time, but I’ll say it is quite a shock.
BINGO….excellent article…I for one do not want to repeat the recent history of Nicaragua or El Salvador in the US.
Obama = the interconnection of political philosophies and agendas that are not as far apart as they seem….This is one reason it is so dangerous.
Marxism promotes the overthrow of traditional social structures and replace these with a super structure…the Authoritarian Collective State
Liberation Theology replaces the atheist Marxist state with the Church and reduces Jesus to being a militant for the poor…The economy and the class structure are still Marxist…This was how they won over Catholics in Latin America…Marxism wrapped up in the Baby Jesus..
Black Liberation Theology is the same with an added component of Racial Supremacy…Marxist classes are defined along racial terms…
Islamic Theocracy is basically the full bloom of totalitarianism in that there is no separation between church and state….economy is regulated by the super structure…I mean who calls the shots in Iran ?
Regardless…each represents FASCISM…
No Obama is a FASCIST….and that is obvious…
Pundita: That is one of the more frightening articles I have ever read. It is also frightening to think that the DNC and party elites and others supporting this monster including our mass media knew about this all along and kept us in the dark so they could defeat Hillary Clinton and crown Obama. We need to hold the media, the DNC, the party elites and people who endorsed him accountable. We are going down a stinking hole because of these idiots.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/19079579.html
Obama stumped about biggest nuclear toxic waste area in Oregon, Hanford, had no clue about it! The site is in Washington state but also affects Oregon, major environmental issue!
That’s disgraceful. Hanford has been in the news for a long time - I’m thinking 20 years or so. What kind of environmentalist doesn’t know about Hanford?
Indeed, Hanford is a HUGE concern to the whole northwest. Obama is clueless.
As always, No Quarter draws blood with sharp prose.
The Ayers/Obama weave ducks in and out of the light history, by dint of the damaged goods that pass for Chicago journalism.
The Medill Machine directs the print, audio and Television journalists who would explode were they to have an orginal thought. From the corrupt University Boards at Northwestern, DePaul and University of Chicago emerge the robot-army that passes for journists.
Ayers and his arrogant efforts to build a Pan-American sphere of influence will be the undoing of Obama’s Campaign. The Chavez/Ayers/FARC/DNC troika can only become more evident in the months to come.
Well done, Pundita and Larry!
Keep the light on these cockroaches.
http://hickeysite.blogspot.com/2008/05/john-mccain-lobbyist-strawman-is-on.html
Monday, May 19, 2008
*********************************
Hillary Clinton: The Other White Meat. How The DNC ate the Clinton Campaign.
*************************
Something deeply disturbing has gone down in the Democratic Party over the course of the last year. 50% of the Democratic electorate is being thrown overboard by the elites. It is now evident that this was planned by numerous people high up in both party’s power structures with the assent of some powerful media outlets. Not to mention George Soros. Below I list the evidence for my allegation that a fix was put in to stop Hilary Clinton. All of it is either MY inference or can be easily found with some basic google searches. This post goes to my suspicions. There may be rebuttals on all counts. Feel free to refute me on any point.
Obamites: get all your high handed rage ready. I am announcing here - upfront - that I am attempting to connect some dots with known material. This is not journalism. It does not pretend to be.
Obama makes no sense as a national candidate. This could change, I admit. I am not in the “he can’t win” category. He could. (sans my vote) The coalition he has put together is simply weaker in most general election scenarios than Clinton’s and yet the DNC and “liberal” media seem hell bent on anointing him. Since he admittedly has less experiecne than the stronger G.E. candidate, Clinton, why? His policy proposals are the same as Clinton’s or weaker by Dems standards . He is, in fact, a divisive, figure now not a uniter. So why is the DNC and the media STILL determined to crown Obama? I believe there is more to the story - like the run up to the Iraq war - and am genuinely curious. Yes, I am furious about the sexism in the media abetted by the Obama camp. Yes, I resent how badly she has been treated. Yes, I am sad and disgusted it looks like she came in a close second. (except in the popular vote) And YES I think her campaign made some large mistakes. All of that plays a part - in my thinking. Still I wonder if a fix was not put in on Hillary early on. I am allowed to. The blog is 50% mine.
The 10 points below that indicate a plan for creating Obama and stopping Hillary Clinton and are worth deeper investigation:
1. Almost all Obama’s legislative “accomplishments” came in his final year as a state senator. He had little to do with any of it aside from putting his name on the bill.
2. With heavy pressure from the Chicago owned Los Angeles Times a family court judge released the sealed divorce proceedings of BHO’s main opponent for the U.S. Senate. This paved the way for an easy victory. Since the documents contained salacious information both parties in the divorce proceedings loudly protested the release of the documents. It was done anyway, flying in the face of ALL family court precedent. Why?
3. The poison pill in Florida GOP “paper trail” voting bill: Moving the primary up in violation of DNC rules became impossible for Democrats to vote against. They would have had to vote against a “paper trail” - after the 2000 thievery. Check mate.
4. Immediately following Florida’s move Donna Brazille loudly pushed for the DNC to use the “nuclear” option and strip Florida of ALL it’s delegates. Not the saner choice, made by the GOP, to remove half the delegation. Donna got her way. Florida, now denuded of power, was assumed to be a Clinton state. Turned out it was.
5. The same irrational, draconian punishment was meted out to Michigan, another Clinton stronghold. Nevertheless, fearing a Clinton rout in a large state, Obama chose to take his name off the ballot. He was not forced. 4 Democrats remained on the ballot. Clinton easily defeated them all.
6. Two of the largest Democratic political blogs suddenly became righteously anti - Clinton. Kos had an insurrection on its hands and without a murmur of concern allowed all Pro-Clinton writers to leave, though previously it supported moderate Democrats and Liberals. Americablog, run by the openly Gay man, John Avarosis, changed its tune even more abruptly. After years of viciously going after any and all homophobes, including Obama friend Donnie McClurkin, Americablog has surrendered its previous principled stance. Obama’s homophobic fellow travellers are not an issue at Americablog. Why? Can I say a quid pro quo is behind this? No. Do I think there is more than meets the eye here? I certainly do.
7. The media drumbeat for Clinton to “get out” began right after Iowa. It was often loudest after she WON primaries. Bizarrely, the noise would peak after she had come from behind in Texas and soundly beat Obama in Ohio. It revved up again after she won PA handily -again after she came from behind to win in Indiana. There was no logic to the media’s demands. The race was, and remains, close. The week of Obama’s 41 point defeat in West Virgina Time magazine “declared” him the winner. Go figure.
8. Howard Dean has demanded adherence to the rules when it comes to Florida and Michigan while ignoring them when if comes to Iowa. According to the DNC’s stated policy Iowa violated the rules by placing its caucus on Jan 3. Why did Dean ignore this violation?
9. Obama’s well timed endorsements have been suspicious to me for a while. John Edwards’ timing is most suspect. A solicitation email from an Edwards group was sent out the same day leading a logical observer to conclude that money had something to do with it. Elizabeth Edwards was not present when her husband endorsed Obama.
10. The Wright tapes were roundly ignored for months by all major media outlets. How is this possible? They were out there. Purchasable on the church’s web site, for goodness sake. Yet, voters in fully 2/3 of the states had to decide BEFORE seeing them. Given the “gotcha” media environment - a logical person can only conclude that the media decided to ignore the tapes - until they no longer could.
Go on - let me have it. But please Obamatons, respond with rebuttals to one or all ten points above. Do not roundly scream “sour grapes!” and think you’ve won an argument. All points are verifiable or events I question based on my observations. Tell me I am on the right track or on the wrong one and why. We all did this same type of thinking out loud after Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush stole the 2000 election.
Elections are rough. I fault Clinton for not seeing how much the decked was stacked against her and responding more forcefully. Nevertheless, we have the right to ask questions about how all this came to pass.
posted
SIURCE OF ARTICLE—– HERE IS THE LINK —–
http://www.liberalrapture.com/2008/05/was-fix-put-in-on-clinton.html
I SAW IT ON REALCLEARPOLITICE .COM
Corbett is on!!
WILK
wooHOO!
i’ll just say “boo” since no of my comments seem to show up or get posted anyway
I just finished up an e-mail to my college kid, and in I said, “It’s not the content of college, it’s the tools for learning. I’m just delighted you’re gaining the tools and can enjoy a life-long relationship with learning.”
Although Ayers is not my cuppa tea, I don’t also give him such power.
People who gain educational tools cannot be roped in. We enjoy thinking.
Thinking is a pleasure. We enjoy questioning.
And that, too, is a pleasure.
Once learning becomes a pleasure, then pedantry is not.
If Ayers is persuasive, then maybe some of his ideas are actually sound.
I eat dinner with elementary school teachers every Thursday night. They make me nuts, btw. They are very dedicated.
Let me tell you, Ayers and any of this ideology is so not on their minds.
It’s their bulletin boards, their test scores, the upcoming play the kids are doing, the parent-teacher conferences, the latest betrayal by the principal, etc.
Althought this talk can drive me to go seek a cuppa coffee because it’s so boring to me, I also see that’s why Hillary is winning people over. We’re just not interested in Ayers or his ideology.
When I was in college, I studied with some of the best minds about how writing is thinking, etc.
It was terribly exciting.
And then, I got into the real world where I was the one to clean up the CEO’s letters because they couldn’t write a straight sentence. I wrote their speeches, and someone joked after the 3rd merger that all of them sounded identical. That was a fair joke, since I was writing the speeches. LOL* One CEO said, “I’m as good as she pretends I am.”
Ayers isn’t a big deal to me, in short. That’s guilt by association.
What is more relevant to me is that Obama is just a dead-head type.
Looking Back With Anger
The Democrat Party — crippled for decades by stale ideas that never quite resonated after the turbulent 60’s, humiliated by the perception of weakness against the backdrop of the Cold War and the Reagan Revolution — the party of George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis FINALLY broke through the bland barrier when Bill Clinton was discovered in 1992.
The Republicans were so insensed with the DNC’s one shining star that they embarked on an eight year character assassination attempt, culminating with an impeachment trial that produced….. NOTHING.
The Clintons survived every political stick, stone, and scud launched at them. Yet amidst the lingering haze of the incessant political battlefield they still managed to make the 90’s one of the most peaceful and prosperous times in American history.
The post-Bill Clinton years were like a time warp. We returned to candidates who were uncomfortable and stiff in debate. Al Gore, much like Jimmy Carter, has proven to be much more interesting far away from the political arena. John Kerry was a dud from the beginning, much like Dukakis. The Massachusetts liberals never had a ghost of a chance in connecting with the vastly diverse American culture.
http://www.politicalpyro.blogsome.com/2008/05/20/looking-back-with-anger/
Cahchi - He is all of the above and more. We haven’t heard half of what Obama is. But don’t worry we’ll find out soon - hopefully before August.
He is a danger to our national security. McCain will win in a landslide if Obama is the nominee.
Folks need to check out the videos of William Ayers on YouTube. Some have been there for years.
My favorite are the 11 part series where Ayers discusses with a would be Bolivian education revolutionary his “social justice” education agenda. This is all done while there is a poster of Che’ Guevara displaced prominently on the wall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDwHns0LetE
Then there are the videos of Ayers wearing his “Cuba” jersey
at a Movement for a Democratic Society event basically a SDS revival organization.
http://www.movementforademocraticsociety.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45WkbIUVRNw&feature=related
i’ve spent many years regretting that i could not afford to send my son to college. it was one of his dreams, and one i could not provide.
looks like god was looking out for him…
who knew…?
14 common aspects of fascism. Number 11: Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
I’m with Jon Stewart. I don’t want the President of the United States to be someone I feel I could drink a beer or do shots with. I want a President who is elite. I want a President who is embarrassingly superior to me.
Well then, unless Hillary is the nominee, we are out of luck, again.
To be honest, I don’t think any of the candidates are all that superior to me except in terms of personal wealth. Except John McCain, who I think is not only a lousy Presidential candidate, but a lousy American and a lousy human being.
I’m curious why you think McCain is a “lousy American” as opposed to just misguided on some issues.
And maybe Obama is superior to you. But, not to me.
Hillary is the candidate with a grasp on the issues, and solutions to those problems. Obama just copies her homework. “Elite” is not synonymous with smart or capable. It just means you think you are.
I want someone who knows what the country and its citizens require to keep this county functioning and secure. To know what we need, you must know us. Obama does not want to know us. Obama has not demonstrated any kind of grasp on how to fix what’s broken or even any knowledge of what actually is broken.
Obama is full of slogans, but short on solutions. He cannot answer a question without a teleprompter. We already have that guy in the White House, don’t need another speechifier.
I want a solutions President. Someone who is not afraid of a little hard work and that person is Hillary Clinton. She is not elite, but she far outshines Obama in the brains department. SHe can think on her feet and is never unprepared.
Well that wouldn’t be Obama. I know more than him.
Washington, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower v. Obama
»
If on November 5 we have crossed a historical threshold and elected our first black president, I will eat crow, feathers and all, but I don’t think it will happen. In a previous post, before the blasphemous blowhard Jeremiah Wright arrived on the scene, I thought, like many Americans, Republican or Democrat, that Obama was a nice, smart guy. He was a refreshing change, if only in style, from the brain-dead liberal elders in his party. He was, most emphatically not the craven lamp-and-ashtray throwing heir to a decade of moral rot that is Hillary Clinton. If there was ever a Democrat that would change the tone in Washington, if not his political positions, it was Obama. And if he happened to be black, who cares, I live by a code of a (capitalist) meritocracy and it matters not a whit the guy’s skin color.
Picture George Washington sitting in the colonial era Falls Church in (now) Falls Church, Virginia. It is not far from Mt. Vernon and he was known to frequent the church as it was located near the falls of the Potomac River. Washington was a pious man and loved his country with every fiber of his being. Would he have selected a man such as Reverend Jeremiah Wright as his pastor, a racist America-hating “clergyman” who talks about someone “riding dirty” on an intern while executing pelvic thrusts that would make Elvis blush. At the risk of beating it to death, watch again and put Washington in the congregation.
http://www.patriotroom.com/?p=161
Top Ten Ways to Tell the Press is in Love with Senator Obama
10. Newscaster crosses himself before speaking Senator Obama’s name
*********************
9. 5:2:1 Ratio of Obama:Clinton:McCain campaign representatives featured on nightly broadcasts.
********************************
8. News analysis concludes that only uneducated narrow-minded people don’t vote for Senator Obama
****************************
7. Station does expose on SNL bias after they joke about Senator Obama being coddled by the press.
*****************
6. Delegate count that is repeated every 15 minutes ends with the proclamation that Senator Obama’s nomination is a mathematical certainty.
***************************
5. Press now considers the Clintons Republicans
***********************************
4. Commentator tears up whenever someone challenges Senator Obama’s experience level.
****************************
3. Newscast breaks into Clinton or McCain speech with Obama speech.
**************************
2. Commentator flies into a rage when Senator Clinton wins a primary
************************
1. Shivers shoot up their leg when Senator Obama speaks
Blagojevich, Obama, Rezko, Illinois governor, Governor in middle of case, Chicago Tribune, May 17, 2008, Rezko trial, Political corruption
**************************************************************************************************************************************************************If you have been following the Tony Rezko corruption trial, several names are mentioned over and over. Obama, Stuart Levine and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich are mentioned in the same sentence as Rezko and Chicago and Illinois corruption. Governor Blagojevich has not been indicted yet but many believe his indictment is probable. The Illinois legislature recently proposed a bill to allow the Illinois people to recall the governor. It was narrowly defeated. The Chicago Tribune just came out with a story about Blagojevich, his strong ties to Rezko and the possibility of his indictment. Here are some excerpts:
“Patrick Collins, the former federal prosecutor who led the successful prosecution of former Gov. George Ryan, said it seems the government’s case against Rezko is “inextricably intertwined with Blagojevich.””
“Most recently, former Blagojevich aide Ali Ata testified that before he was hired by the administration, he attended a meeting at Rezko’s offices with Rezko and the governor. At the meeting, Ata said, he brought along a $25,000 check that was then placed on the table in front of Blagojevich.”
“The prosecution’s star witness, Stuart Levine, testified that on that same fundraising trip he thanked Blagojevich for his reappointment to a hospital planning board. The governor, according to the testimony, told Levine to “never discuss any state board with me,” but then added, “but you stick with us and you’ll do very well for yourself.””
Read the rest of the story here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-bd18may18,0,7895365.story
Another thing
Connie Chung of ABC news did a documentary in 1998 called “The Whole World Was Watching” on the 30 aniversary of 1968. It features interviews with Ayers and Dohrn at their Hyde Park home being unrepentent concerning their Weathermen and Weather Underground days.
That is bound to show up again soon.
Here is a snippet from it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxRi4gfupi8
Typical White Sweetie,
Excellent research and connecting of the dots and I’ve had similar observations too. Yes, something is terribly wrong with the lead up to the primary and how the process is being playing out. It just doesn’t make sense and it does, indeed, have the smell of a “fix”.
I urge you to read the following article. It fills in some of the blanks, or seems to. However, it does add another couple pieces of the puzzle that you posted above. I won’t say just yet who wrote it, because I would like your response first and then I’ll disclose who wrote it:
With the continued inescapable acceleration of the financial and economic collapse, both here in the U.S. and globally, a faction of the Anglo-Dutch financial establishment has been desperate to drive Clinton out of the race. Fearing the emergence of a U.S. Presidency capable of opposing their global war drive, of addressing the world food crisis, and of implementing a new financial architecture that would amount to the equivalent of a New Bretton Woods system and an international New Deal, they’ve thrown all caution to the wind in a blatant attempt to take over and control the U.S. election.
The situation prior to West Virginia’s primary was indeed tense. Foreign agents of influence like Felix Rohatyn and George Soros had worked hard to orchestrate a clamor of calls, that was widely featured in the media, for Clinton to withdraw. Despite strong showings for Clinton in all the opinion polls, the sort of vote fraud that had been carried out in North Carolina could not be ruled out. If they could pull off another North Carolina, the stage was set to shut down the Clinton campaign—and that included an effort to convince her finance committee to pull the rug out from under her.
Instead, Clinton scored a blowout 41-point victory, smashing Obama in every demographic group, and strengthening her capacity to continue through to the August Convention and take the Democratic nomination. One well-placed political analyst likened the Clinton win to a revolution in the making.
Attempting To Drive Her Out
Since Obama won the Iowa caucuses, there has been an escalating attempt to drive Clinton out of the race. A variety of potential scenarios were in play, but none of them could tolerate Clinton as the Democratic nominee, much less, as President. In fact, following the blatant fraud in North Carolina, individuals close to Clinton were told as much; that what was perceived as a Clinton-Clinton Presidency would simply be too independent, and potentially impossible to control.
The fact that Clinton commanded a larger portion of the popular vote, and that millions of Democrats had not yet had the opportunity to vote; the fact that she had beat Obama in every state critical to a Democratic victory in November; and the fact that she continued to show that she was the Democrat who could beat McCain, seemed inexplicably irrelevant to the Party elite behind Obama. Within days of his pyrrhic North Carolina win, Obama virtually declared himself the Democratic nominee, and even went so far as to challenge the presumed Republican nominee John McCain to a one-on-one debate some time in early June. When all else failed, the Obama campaign literally tried to buy Clinton off, offering to pay her estimated $25-30 million campaign debt if she would withdraw from the race. The press and media chant that the Democratic race was over, grew ever louder.
Clinton refused to bend. She continued to do as she has since New Hampshire, and took her campaign directly to the lower 80% of the population, stressing her willingness to address the problems the current depression brings with it. Despite the insistence that the campaign was over, and that their votes were irrelevant, West Virginia Democrats responded. In an act of outright defiance, they came out in healthy numbers, delivering Clinton the win she needed.
Despite the public bravado, there was a sense of panic in the Obama camp that Clinton had once again captured the momentum of the campaign, just as she had following wins in New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. In an attempt to somehow kill the effect of Obama’s 41 point loss, John Edwards, who just 48 hours earlier, had said that he wouldn’t make an endorsement until after all the primaries had taken place, made a Michigan appearance with Obama, endorsing his candidacy.
The endorsement itself was no surprise. Obama has been courting Edwards for four months, and Edwards, who has enjoyed a lot more success as a liability lawyer than as a candidate, has simply been holding out for the best deal. But, aides to Obama admitted that Edwards was growing increasingly concerned that Obama’s inability to win white working-class voters was doing too much damage to the Illinois Senator’s campaign. Edwards gave what amounted to a stump speech highlighting his favorite subject—John Edwards. Some commented that when the time came, Edwards seemed reluctant to hand over the microphone to Obama.
It isn’t even clear how much the Edwards endorsement will actually help Obama. One senior member of Congress, who has not declared support for either Obama or Clinton, shrugged off the endorsement. “Edwards ran for the nomination in 2004 and lost it. Then he ran in the general election with Kerry and lost. He tried for the nomination again this time, and again, he lost. The fact is, the guy is a three-time loser.” Either way, the Edwards endorsement and the trickle of superdelegate endorsements cannot erase what occurred in West Virginia.
Winning the Tough Districts
Among white voters without a college degree, Clinton defeated Obama by 50 percentage points. Among white voters making less than $30,000 a year, Clinton’s margin of victory was more than 60 percentage points. Clinton won every demographic, including those that had previously been going to Obama. The only exception was the small handful of voters with post-college degrees; there she and Obama were tied 49-49.
The speech Clinton delivered the night of her West Virginia victory explicitly targeted more than the voters of West Virginia. “There were some folks who didn’t want us to keep going until we got to West Virginia,” she said. “They wanted to say West Virginia doesn’t matter. I don’t think they understand West Virginia, or politics, because West Virginia really matters when it comes to making the decisions that affect our country,” referring to the central role the state played when John F. Kennedy overcame deep skepticism about his Catholicism to win here.
“In light of our overwhelming victory here, I want to send a message to everyone still making up their mind,” Clinton said, speaking directly to the Democratic superdelegates, among others. “I am in this race because I believe I am the strongest candidate to lead our party in November of 2008, and the strongest President to lead our nation starting in January of 2009. I can win this nomination, if you decide I should. And I can lead this party to victory in the general election if you lead me to victory now. The choice falls to all of you, and I don’t envy you.”
So much for the ridiculous speculation in the press about which exit strategy Clinton would use to gracefully leave the race. Instead of kneeling down and letting the clock run out, Clinton threw a “Hail Mary” pass to the party leaders watching on the sidelines. “The bottom line is this,” she said: “The White House is won in the swing states, and I am winning the swing states overwhelmingly. I am more determined than ever to carry on this campaign until everyone has had a chance to make their voices heard.”
The next day Clinton traveled to Washington to rally her Capitol Hill supporters who, along with those as yet uncommitted superdelegates, have come under excruciating pressure that some say is tantamount to threats. Clinton’s aides were instructed to do everything they could to keep uncommitted superdelegates from making endorsements; despite the repeated pronouncements by the Obama camp that he has clinched the nomination.
She used the meeting to drive home the point that she is more competitive with precisely that category of voter, and in the districts where Democrats will face their toughest race this fall. In a presentation titled “Winning in the Tough Districts,” the Clinton campaign highlights that she won 16 of 20 congressional districts that had voted for Bush, and are now represented by first-term Democrats. Many Democratic lawmakers believe winning in these districts is critical to protecting or expanding their majority in Congress. Clinton won the districts represented by freshman Democrats Zack Space (Ohio), Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.), Jerry McNerney (Calif.), Tim Mahoney (Fla.), and Nick Lampson (Tex.), who are all uncommitted superdelegates. Several other freshman superdelegates from Republican-leaning districts responded by recently declaring their support for Clinton: Reps. Chris Carney (Pa.), Heath Shuler (N.C.), and Ciro Rodriguez (Tex.). Although the press has made much of the superdelegates Obama has picked up, the simple fact is that Clinton has forestalled the much-predicted post-North Carolina superdelegate stampede to him.
Later, when she met with her finance committee, if there had been any intention by some of them to pull out, it certainly wasn’t apparent. To underline their continuing support, and Clinton’s intention to stay in the race, her campaign purchased a series of ads and opened new campaign offices in Oregon and Kentucky, the next of the five remaining primary states to vote (on May 20). The ads focus heavily on those economic issues most important to the lower 80% of the population for whom Clinton has become a voice.
It is an absolute nightmare for those behind the Obama candidacy. In their view, Clinton should have been out of this race back in March, and the fact that she has stubbornly stayed has created a major problem for them. Right now, there is no easy way to go after Clinton, especially after her landslide victory in West Virginia, and what are expected to be similar big wins, at least in Kentucky and Puerto Rico, without eliciting great sympathy and potentially great anger from voters. And, the fact that she has achieved those victories running against the Party establishment makes her increasingly unpredictable. The implications if Clinton continues to go after “Wall Street” and continues to focus on economic issues, create the potential for a situation that could get completely out of control.
Does the Math Matter?
But, what about the math? The argument that there is no way that she can take enough delegates to deprive Obama of the nomination is as empty as Obama is himself. In addition to the five primaries remaining, where 189 elected delegates are at stake, there is the question of the disposition of the 366 delegates from the disputed primaries in Michigan and Florida, both states that heavily favored Clinton. If, and how, those delegates are apportioned is likely to be decided by the Democratic National Committee Rules and By-Laws Committee when it meets in Washington, D.C. on May 31. If those 366 delegates are apportioned between Clinton and Obama based on popular votes, it would give Clinton a net increase of 47 delegates, significantly narrowing Obama’s current delegate lead.
Since the superdelegates are all technically unpledged, i.e., not bound to any candidate, regardless of whom they might or might not endorse prior to the Convention, a favorable decision by the 30-member panel would provide strong impetus for Clinton to take her campaign all the way to Denver, bolstering her argument to the superdelegates that she is ahead in the overall count of the popular vote, and possibly move them into her column. If the panel fails to seat those delegates, it runs the risk of major protests and demonstrations, both before, and during the convention, led especially by the Florida delegation. Hispanic delegates from across the nation have already indicated that if the largely Hispanic Florida delegation is not seated, they will join the demonstrations.
When all the arguments are made, while delegate counts are, of course, important in a practical sense, those who understand history know that it is the political dynamic that will determine the outcome of this campaign, and right now, the dynamic of the campaign seems to be favoring Clinton. For all the talk about Obama’s ability to bring out new voters, Clinton has repeatedly brought out the base of the Democratic Party in large numbers, despite what might be the most massive press and media barrage to be fired against any candidate, other than Lyndon LaRouche, in U.S. history. And, she continues to address the issues that people care about most.
Some of the current polls indicate that Obama might be able to beat McCain in a one-on-one race, but Clinton defeats him handily. Perhaps more important, in-depth polls do show, as her “Winning the Tough Districts” presentation illustrates, that a Clinton win would be accompanied by a significant increase in the Democratic majority in Congress. If Obama were to win the nomination, the same polls show that while he might take the White House, the Democrats would likely lose congressional seats. One senior congressional Democrat commented, “You have to wonder, what the hell are Dean, Pelosi, and Reid thinking? Clinton is clearly the best nominee for us. Sure, there’s the pressure from the leadership to go for Obama, but people are waking up today and are looking at results in West Virginia, and thinking about Kentucky and Puerto Rico, and saying, ‘Hey, let’s slow this thing down.’ If we keep going this way, we’re not only going to lose an election that we should, by all arguments, win, but the Democratic Party is going to be marginalized to the point of being irrelevant. If that happens, God help us all.”
There’s no question that if Clinton stays in this race and sticks to the policies that have resulted in her coming this far, she can win the Democratic nomination and the Presidency. And, while the economy has emerged as the single-most important issue in the campaign, what is truly shaping this campaign, more than anything else, is Hillary herself. The press may report endlessly about this or that poll, but what they fail to report is most interesting of all: Democratic voters are not tired of the campaign. In fact, 72% of all Democrats, including those who identify themselves as favoring Obama, think Clinton should stay in the race all the way to the Convention.
An increasingly angry lower 80% of the electorate says they support Hillary Clinton because they believe she is the candidate who is willing to address the collapse of the U.S. economy and issues related to it. And, they resent the attempt to be dictated to: to be told that the campaign is over. Polls show that those voters favor Clinton, not only because of her stand on economic issues, but because they see her as a fighter, and as someone who will fight for them and won’t quit. As one Democratic member of Congress put it, “The way my constituents look at the situation, is that guys like Obama and Edwards may look and talk pretty, but you don’t get a sense of them as real people. It’s just not the case with Hillary Clinton. They feel like they know who she is. She may not always be right, but she’s a fighter, and they like that. Plus, the woman is tough. She exudes pure brawn; unflinching, steely brawn. When the time comes that they have to decide who they want sitting on their side of the table, whether they’re going up against Wall Street or some foreign dictator, they’re going to go with Clinton.”
What those voters are responding to is a quality of leadership, especially leadership in the face of adversity. In the wake of his defeat in Pennsylvania, Obama appeared to be in danger of unraveling. Clinton has taken everything that has been thrown at her, and has managed to maintain her focus with calm, and keep fighting. Given the crises that lie immediately ahead for our nation, it is a quality that we should all take note of.
When Clinton wins, it’s clear that she’s a leader. When she loses, it’s clear that she’s a fighter.
I think it’s a great thing for the Democratic Party for this race to continue to June 3. Everywhere these two have gone they’ve smashed records for voter registration and turnout.
What I don’t think is a great thing is for either candidate to be hitting below the belt, something that Sen. Clinton is far more guilty of than Sen. Obama. Trotting out McCain adviser Karl Rove as anything beyond “the embodiment of why it’s critical that the Democratic Party take back the White House” is so beyond the pale that I lack words to describe it.
Karl Rove belongs in jail, not as part of some spurious argument about so-called electability.
If my memory serves me correctly, you’re the one who brought up Karl Rove’s name on this thread.
From our Commander-in-Class our next President Hillary Clinton:
Obama knew all he needed to know about Ayers, he tends to seek out these people, the worst of the worst. If you’re anti American and you believe America deserves payback you’re a friend of Obama and Michelle. Remember she sit in that church 20 years or even longer took the kids their so they could get their anti whitey teaching in their early years.
Apoligies in advance for the long post but America needs to Wake Up! Ayers and Dhorn were the FOUNDERS of a group that terrorized government agencies for years threatening to bomb them and succeeded in doing so. Their goal was sabatoge, people were killed and injured, and significant property damage was done. People are tired of BO supporters dismissing them as harmless because their violent rampage was 30 years ago. Obama lied in the debate that his connection to Ayers is that he’s just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” This is about the judgement of someone who wants the most important job in the world. He chose to launch his political career at their house. The articles here at NOQ show a much deeper relationship. Thank you for exposing it.
10/7/69 Bombing of Haymarket Police Statue in Chicago, as “kickoff” for the “Days of Rage”
10/8/69 “Days of Rage” riots in Chicago in which 287 Weatherman members were arrested and a large amount of property damage was done
10/6/69 Bombing of Chicago Police cars. The WUO stated in their book “Prairie Fire” that they did the explosion
12/27/69 Weathermen hold “War Council” where they finalize plans to submerge into an underground status from which they plan to commit strategic acts of sabotage against the government. Thereafter they are called the “Weather Underground Organization” WUO. Dohrn raised three fingers in a “fork salute” to CHARLES MANSON, whom she proposed as a revolutionary inspiration. “Dig it,” said Dohrn. “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!”
1969 Ayers attempted to extort money from the Vietnam Moratorium Committee, demanding $20,000 to abstain from violence during a planned peace protest. After rejecting this demand, a member of the Moratorium group asked Ayers what he really wanted. “To kill all rich people,” Ayers responded. When another peace activist pointed out that Ayers himself came from wealth, he answered: “Bring the war home. Kill your parents.”
2/13/70 Bombing of Berkeley CA police vehicles
2/16/70 Bombing of Golden Gate Park branch of San Francisco Police Department, killing one officer and injuring a number of other policemen
3/6/70 Bombing of the Detroit PD
3/6/70 “bomb factory” located in Greenwich Village explodes. WUO members die. The bomb was intended to be planted at a non-commissioned officer’s dance at Fort Dix, NJ that night. The bomb was packed with nails TO INFILICT MAXIMUM CASUALTIES UPON DETONATION
3/30/70 Chicago Police discover WUO “bomb factory” on Chicago’s north side. Subsequent discovery of a WUO “weapons cache” in a south side Chicago apartment several days later ends WUO activity in the city
5/10/70 Bombing of The National Guard Association building in Washington, D.C.
5/21/70 WUO under Bernardine Dohrn’s name releases its “Declaration of a State of War” communique
6/6/70 WUO sends letter claiming credit for bombing of San Francisco Hall of Justice; however, no explosion actually took place. Months later, workmen in the building located an unexploded device which had been dormant for some time
6/9/70 Bombing of New York City Police Headquarters
7/27/70 Bombing of Presidio Army Base, San Francisco
9/12/70 WUO helps Timothy Leary break out and escape from the CA Men’s Colony prison
10/8/70 Bombing of Marin County courthouse
10/10/70 Bombing of Queens traffic-court building
10/14/70 Bombing of Harvard Center for International Affairs
3/1/71 Bombing of The US Capitol
4/71 abandoned WUO “bomb factory” discovered in San Francisco
8/29/71 Bombing of the Office of CA Prisons
9/17/71 Bombing of The NY Dept of Corrections Albany, NY
10/15/71 Bombing of William Bundy’s office in the MIT research center
5/19/72 Bombing of The Pentagon
5/18/73 Bombing of the 103rd Police Precinct in NY
9/28/73 Bombing of ITT headquarters in NY and Rome, Italy
3/6/74 Bombing of the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare in San Francisco
5/31/74 Bombing of The Office of the CA Attorney General
6/17/74 Bombing of Gulf Oil’s Pittsburgh headquarters
9/11/74 Bombing of Anaconda Corporation
1/29/75 Bombing of US State Department
6/16/75 Bombing of Banco de Ponce in NY
9/75 Bombing of Kennecott Corporation
10/20/81 Brinks robbery in which several members of the Weather Underground stole over $1 million from a Brinks armored car near Nyack, NY. The robbers murdered 2 police officers and 1 Brinks guard. Several others were seriously wounded
1991 “Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country,” Ayers said when interviewed by David Horowitz
1995 Obama campaign event at Ayers/Dohrn house
1995 - 2003 Obama serves as Chariman of Ayers’ Chicago Annenberg Challenge
1997 Ayers and Obama serve on a University of Chicago panel entitled, “Should a child ever be called a ’super predator?”
1999-2002 Obama and Ayers serve as paid directors on Woods Fund Board
4/2/2001 Obama accepts campaign contribution from Ayers
9/10/2001 Ayers releases his book “Fugitive Days”
9/11/2001 “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? “I don’t want to discount the possibility,” he said. Ayers quoted in NYT article
4/20/2002 Ayers and Obama serve on panel together called “Intellectuals in Times of Crisis”
The last one is the creepiest.
1997 Ayers and Obama serve on a University of Chicago panel entitled, “Should a child ever be called a ’super predator?”
4/20/2002 Ayers and Obama serve on panel together called “Intellectuals in Times of Crisis”
You can not tell me that either the University of Chicago or the University of Illinois Chicago would not have video or audio of these sponsored effect. Also what about the farewell diner for Rashid Khalidi? Because if anybody will have a copy it will be Karl Rove.
The audio and video would prove that Obama blatantly lied during last month’s ABC debates about the nature of his relationship with Ayers.
Larry,
Surely you know somebody in Chicago who could take the time to visit UC or UIC and ask their libaries if they have audio, video or transcripts from these events.
I get it! Today is d-day (defeat day) for Clinton and it’s making everyone especially angry.
Otherwise, there’d be articles about Clinton’s work with a communist law firm that worked with the Black Panthers (the senior law partners are now speaking out because they’re confused about Hillary’s run from her own radical past. SHE sought THEM out.
What about that thesis she wrote and is still keeping off record? Saul Alinsky and Hillary Clinton? Wasn’t she going to go to work with him at one point? Whatever happened with that? Did she work for people just like him at her old law firm, instead?
There’s NOTHING you can throw at Obama that the Clintons haven’t done or worse. You think the Republican right don’t know about much about her as the Democratic right keeps trying to manufacture about Obama?
Thanks Kenni.
Denni you were supposed to go to TAYLOR MARSH you idiot! You want to get paid this month or what?
YAWN! If I was getting paid, I’d have chosen a different site, for a myriad of reasons. This is a labor of love.
BTW, how many paid bloggers here? Were YOU in on that big ‘thank you’ call from Clinton? Freaky! Read the transcripts on that one…
Well Denni, it’s clearly passed your nap time.
The adults are discussing the fact that Obama said Ayers was just a guy in his neighborhood and posters above have proven otherwise.
We really need to get back to: “Children should be seen and not heard.”
Haha. The pity with these preteen Obama tossers is they’re supposed to throw shit at Hillary - except nothing sticks.
The eternal dilemma for Barry, for Axelrod, and for these sexually insecure Obama fanatics is with Barry you can’t get the shit off.
Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents.
Bill can say things like that because Bill’s daddy knew he’d never mean such a thing towards him. Bill’s daddy had the $$$ and the clout to help his little wanker boy out no matter the trouble he got in.
Bill thrives on being a nuisance everybody hates. His followers figure they can learn to feed on the same vomit.
Bill’s a little cowardly twit and no more.
[You're reading this, aren't you Bill, you little shit?]
Bill knew his Dad didn’t love him, didn’t consider him worth his time, and it hurt.
Dad wrote him off, threw money at him to shut.him.up.,make him go away.
Deep down, he knew.
As I’ve asked before…why aren’t these terrorists in prison? Why are they allowed to even live in this country after committing crimes against it? Don’t we have some islands they could be sent to, along with people who aren’t proud of their country? ehemmm, yeah, I’m thinking of one.
If those Baby Bolsheviks [h/t Norman Spinrad for the term] had committed their terrorist acts in an actual Communist country, would they still be breathing?
Their cause would go on, it wouldn’t go away, they’d be fighting repression, and they would have a just reason.
And who would aid them, it isn’t as simple as just killing those who don’t comply.
The idea you can use force to intimidate people into compliance is nonsense, a fantasy.
Why did the USSR fail?
Stalin’s system was not sustainable, in the end.
“In any case Obama knew Ayers so well, was so familiar with Ayers’s professional work, that terming him an “English” teacher was not a mistake; it was an attempt to suggest to the public that his relationship with Ayers was casual”
Exactly. The maroooons fell for that line as I seethed at what talking idiotic heads they all are.
They made such an issue out of it and fell right into his commonly used ploy. He does that trick all the time and they all jump right into the trap every single damn time. Double speak smoke and mirrors.
Hey media look - a shiny bauble. ooooooooooh prettty.
other examples:
That man
a guy from my neighborhood
lots of people know him
backhanded compliments “formidable opponent”
I really hate his snake in the grass slimy tactics.
He is a master of illusion who uses slight of hand.
HillaryMadame
Bill Ayer’s father is a VERY wealthy man. He got off on a technicality. Ditto with Dohrn. They both weaseled out of paying their debt to society.
The fact that they are given respect in the halls of academia spite of their lack of being repentant is particularly repugnant to me.
I remember hearing Dohrn spewing her hateful, violent acts over the radio, I remember the fear and the damage done. For Barack to admire them renders him unfit for office to me, the fact that they got off doesn’t mean they are not GUILTY.
Ugh, it drives me crazy.
The fact that they are given respect in the halls of academia spite of their lack of being repentant is particularly repugnant to me.
Hear hear. But forget the ‘respect’ - their merely being there is bad enough.
I don’t care much about ‘debt to society’ - what scares me is these people never took any of it seriously, have no respect for others, and haven’t changed today.
Bill got off not only because of a technicality. He got off because Daddy had the money for powerful lawyers. And who knows what else to further tip the scales of justice.
I don’t know why Ayers and his wife aren’t in jail. And I certainly don’t understand why the left doesn’t completely turn their backs on them. They are largely responsible for the DFH meme that has worked so well for Rethugs for so long. Mostly because they were dirty fucking terrorists, not hippies.
BTW, Markos, no comment from the Democratic right wing about Hillary’s days working in a communist law firm? What was she an intern? associate? I dunno. I know she worked there and the partners are pretty peeved that she’s making a big deal of Obama LOOSE association with a man who was guilty of an act committed when HE was a child, while SHE was an adult who sought them out.
No comment about the link, a very REAL link, with Saul Alinsky? Does the Democratic right wing not realize that the Republican right wing would be digging up and pimping out all of the ‘videos’ and ‘pics’ and ‘documents’ about Clintons ties to those individuals at that time? Defending clients involved in gun battles with the police? Her defense of a pedophile by destroying a 12 year old girl she claimed ‘daydreamed’ about older men and called her a liar, forcing her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation when there was NO evidence she was lying or ever involved with older men, PERIOD.
Are you guys really clueless about what you’d doing? Do you honestly think everyone here, egging you on, is a Hillary supporter, or even a member of the Democratic Right Wing? There are a bunch of GOPers reveling in your hatred for your own party and your willingness to “out Rove” Karl Rove. Surreal.
Been discussed, do a search.
Please, it’s different, and it is, despite the republican simple think to see it as the same.
You are absolutely right bout Hillary unsavory and disreputable past as well as close associations with dubious individuals. But we all know Hillary who is a white AMERICAN woman and we know all about her lies and scandals. Barack Hussein Obama is a black scary man, an unknown quantity, and probably an Muslim who plans to take over our WHITE country. Therefore I applaud the efforts of patriots like Pundita who bring this kind of information, however true it actually is, to discredit this Manchurian candidate.
You are absolutely right about Hillary’s unsavory and disreputable past as well as close associations with dubious individuals and convicted felons. But we all know Hillary who is a white AMERICAN woman and we already know all about her lies and scandals. Barack Hussein Obama is a black scary man, an unknown quantity, and probably a Muslim who plans to take over our WHITE country. Therefore I applaud the efforts of patriots like Pundita who bring this kind of information, however baseless, to discredit this Manchurian Negro candidate.
This article is a nice attempt to smear Obama by guilt by association. The American people don’t buy this crap. Obama’s positive poll ratings are higher than Clinton’s or McCain’s. And they are going to go higher after the Convention. You smear-mongers are just going to have to work much harder, but I don’t think the lies will stick.
[...] ‘The William Ayers plan to turn America’s Schoolchildren into Maoists and How Barack Obama help…‘ - NO QUARTER [...]
[...] ‘The William Ayers plan to turn America’s Schoolchildren into Maoists and How Barack Obama help…‘ - NO QUARTER [...]
[...] The William Ayers Plan to Turn America’s School Children into Maoists and How Barack Obama Helped …, NoQuarterUSA, May 20, [...]
[...] ‘The William Ayers plan to turn America’s Schoolchildren into Maoists and How Barack Obama helped h…‘ - NO QUARTER [...]