Friday, February 22, 2008

Reasons #23 and #172 why we don't want Obama

in the Oval Office.

I've mentioned before that I generally don't watch the Presidential 'debates' because I consider most of what comes out to be a very low grade of fertilizer. So I didn't hear about the bullcrap from Obama until today. Good overall of the mess over at QandO:
And then we have the "capturing Taliban weapons" for resupply bit. Uh, really? So we have half a platoon commanded by a captain on its own in Afghanistan without enough humvees, weapons and ammo having to capture weapons from the bad guys in order to fight?

Whoa, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and Rambo are jealous. And that's pretty much the realm in which this story or "anecdote" belongs.

But again, he didn't know enough about it to know that
And so forth. McQ points out the big thing about this(aside from telling this in the first place) is that neither Obama or anybody on his staff either knew enough about the military to catch the bullcrap, or didn't bother to, you know, check it out. Not a good thing in someone who says he's ready to lead us into Change.

Second thing, this story about some of Obama's contacts/supporters, including a couple of domestic terrorists.
In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.

Oh, they're just activists; that bombing thing is just so yesterday.

Obama’s connections to Ayers and Dorhn have been noted in some fleeting news coverage in the past. But the visit by Obama to their home — part of a campaign courtship — reflects more extensive interaction than has been previously reported.

Neither Ayers nor the Obama campaign would describe the relationship between the two men. Dr. Young described Obama and Ayers as “friends,” but there’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation.

And as to the local political circles:
The relationship with Ayers gives context to his recent past in Hyde Park politics. It’s milieu in which a former violent radical was a stalwart of the local scene, not especially controversial.

It’s also a scene whose liberal ideological features — while taken for granted by the Chicago press corps that knows Obama best — provides a jarring contrast with Obama’s current, anti-ideological stance. This contrast between past and present — not least the Ayers connection — is virtually certain to be a subject Republican operatives will warm to if Obama is the Democratic nominee.
Though he is a respected figure in liberal educational circles, Ayers wrote recently about how in 2006 he was informed he was persona non grata at a progressive educators’ conference in the summer of 2006.
“We cannot risk a simplistic and dubious association between progressive education and the violent aspects of your past,” he quoted the conference organizers, whom he described as friends, as writing to him.
Don't you just love that? Their only problem with a terrorist- who's proud of it- showing up is "Someone might make troubling connections between you blowing things up and our progressive agenda."
But the couple has been embraced, by and large, in the liberal circles dominating Hyde Park politics.
Others are less inclined to even consider forgiveness.

“Ayers was a terrorist. Bernardine Dohrn was a terrorist. Ayers has never offered one word of apology — he glories in it, thinks it’s terrific. And that to me is not what I would call acceptable or mainstream behavior,” said Dan Polsby, a former law professor at Northwestern who is now dean of George Mason University Law School. “If Obama takes a different view on that — well, OK, that’s data about Obama.”
It damn sure does.
He described Ayers as “a professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago and a former aide to Mayor Richard J. Daley,” referring to printed reports that he had “advised” Daley on school reform.
Geez, no wonder the schools are so screwed up.
As Bloomberg News reported recently, Obama and Ayers have crossed paths repeatedly in the last decade. In 1997, Obama cited Ayers’ critique of the juvenile justice system in a Chicago Tribune article on what prominent Chicagoans were reading. He and Ayers served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago for three years starting in 1999. In 2001, Ayers also gave $200 to Obama’s state Senate reelection campaign.

Many details of the 1995 meeting are shrouded by time and by Obama’s and Ayers’ refusals to discuss it.
Personally, this seems to have far too much contact between them for this to be a "We just ran into each other occasionally" excuse to fly. I'll end with this on Obama:
They, like others in his old Chicago world, now consider him a bit too “conservative” for their liking, as Warren wrote recently.

Ackerman, the Hyde Park activist, complained of his votes for continued funding for the Iraq war.

“A lot of people were very angry when he voted to fund the war,” he said. “But any candidate running for president is going to strive for broader appeal and move more to the center — I don’t believe that Barack has departed from his basic principles.”

Dr. Young said, however, that he isn’t supporting either of the leading presidential candidates because he is a single-issue voter, and the issue is single-payer health care.

He said he was disappointed that Obama is “equivocating” on his support for single-payer health care, after saying in the past that he supported it. But he said Obama’s style — “cautious, deliberate, defensive” — was also familiar from the senator’s Hyde Park days.

Translation: Obama will say whatever he thinks will get the most votes, which means his word is no damn good. Much like Al Gore, he'll do damn near anything to get into that office.


Chino Blanco said...

Guilt by association and innuendo. Real nice hit piece you've worked up here. Maybe the Clinton campaign would like to link to you from their campaign site.

Amazing they've left this little gem on their site this long:

In Case You Missed It: “Obama once visited '60s ‘terrorists’.”

Reason #1 I'm voting for Obama: He's not spewing such filth about fellow Democrats.

Anonymous said...

And just who is "WE" that don't want Obama as president? - would that "WE" be Racists People?! - John McCain is Racist So my guess is you're going to vote for him. Or perhaps you feel obligated to vote for Hilary just because one of your "WE" is a woman. Or would the "WE" perhaps be prejudice people? -- you're fine working with blacks and having them as neighbors and talking to them, but as far as one becoming President, you can't stand the idea.

Bill Clinton has SEVENTEEN 16 ties with some other "terrorist" group. -- here is what is said about that - "Hmm. Criticism that "Obama visits with terrorists" would work better for Hillary if her husband hadn't, you know, pardoned them:

In 1999, the Clinton adminstration cravenly offered pardons to 16 hard-core, remorseless terrorists of the Puerto Rican terror group Armed Forces for National Liberation - the FALN. (Two of them rejected the deal.)

During the 1970s and '80s, the FALN waged a war against the people of the United States that included 130 plus bombings. Their most heinous attack was the January 1975 lunchtime bombing of Fraunces Tavern here in New York City. It killed four people, including... Frank Connor, 33." - you can find the article to that at this link,

NOT everyone digs deep to find this shit on Hilary and Bill.

Here is Another link to the very same topic of Bill releasing 16 terrorists.

Anonymous said...

Here is the first link again.

and the second link again.

Go read them.

Anonymous said...

Oh and just one more thing...

I know what Ayers means when he says "I don't regret setting bombs off. I feel we didn't do enough" - Is they were setting off bombs to change the government and wealthy people. Also He saw the bombs weren't changing the government so there for "we didn't do enough". The bombings had changed NOTHING in the government. There are OTHER Groups of the 60s and the 70s who were doing bombings, it was topical in the 60s and 70s.. What do you think the Hippie Generation was about?! - the Hippie Generation wanted Peace and Love and Freedom. What about the Hell's Angels? - they are a motorcyclist group, but they also caused hell with the government.. go do a search on all these other people who've done bombings in the 60s and 70s.

Ayers did NOT bomb the pentagon.. It was the other members in the Weather Underground group that done that bombing.
And Ayers has said that he doesn't remember saying "kill the rich people" but the more he reads articles about it, the more he thinks he actually did.
Everybody misunderstand what their actions were about. HERE is something you should remember, There are ALWAYS two sides to EVERY story. Those who misconception it are the ones who are getting the story wrong. READ the story from William Ayers' Point of view of the story.