How did the debate go?

Education Reform & Sex Education for Five Year Olds

Obama often speaks of reforming schools by massively increasing Federal spending on education and has proposed dozens of new Federal education programs; yet there is no evidence increased federal involvement will improve academic performance. Indeed, the federal role in education began only in 1979 and ever since then, the performance of our public schools has declined. Indeed, the TMSS international test compares American students to the rest of the industrialized world, and we are near the bottom.

Obama has received support, endorsements and funding from the teacher unions and as a result he will never vote contrary to their wishes. Indeed, in the eight years he served as a state senator and the two years as a US senator, there is no record of him ever breaking ranks with the teachers union. Even his hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, called Obama “a staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.”

How can the world’s wealthiest country fail to adequately educate our children? Simple. In nearly all of Europe, the money appropriated for education follows the student regardless if the student attends a public or private school, thereby sitting up a healthy competition between the two systems. Called “vouchers” here in America, we have initiated this only in very small experiments such as in Milwaukee and Cleveland but nowhere have we done this statewide, due to the money, power and influence of the teacher’s unions. Private schools do not require its teachers to join a union, so the union views any proposal that directs students away from public schools as a threat to their flow of union dues.

In a strange twist, Obama says he opposes vouchers because “what you’re going to do is leave a lot of kids at the bottom.” Huh? That’s where the kids are now. While the status quo leaves poor kids trapped in failing schools because they can’t afford to go elsewhere, Obama’s kids don’t have to worry about this. His daughters attend the very expensive private University of Chicago laboratory schools where tuition is at least $15,000 a year. So Obama defends the public school monopoly but he himself won’t place his kids there. This is hypocritical and reflects the hoax of his “change and hope” rhetoric. McCain is the only one advocating educational choice; he says that “no entrenched bureaucracy or union should deny parents that choice and children that opportunity.”

Obama’s refusal to break from the tired old approaches to education is why the union will be mobilizing thousands of teachers to work on his campaign. As long as the current education monopoly exists there will never be any serious reform of our public schools. Like anything else in the market place; if there’s no competition, there’s no incentive to improve the service.

Regarding sex education for Kindergartners, despite the media denials that Obama supports this, he voted for a bill as a State Senator that would extend sex education to five year olds and he defends it here in this YouTube video: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr8GW7bCyMQ

Today, Obama is trying to claim the bill was all about teaching kids how to prevent being sexually molested, but this is only one small part of the bill; it is mostly about teaching about how to prevent sexual diseases like HIV! That would mean teaching five year olds about condoms! Our kids can’t read but they’ll learn all about condoms! Obama claims the curriculum would be “age appropriate” but liberals have used this term all over the country to sneak highly offensive sex ed curriculum into our schools. It means whatever they want it to mean. That term is NOT defined in the law or in Obama’s bill.

But we do know how Obama defines “age appropriate.” In the Democrat primary, Obama
was asked if he would be comfortable having the book, King & King, read to 2nd graders. This animated book is about two homosexual kings who fall in love with each other, complete with a picture of them kissing. Here’s Obama:

Moderator Tim Russert asked John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton
whether they’d be comfortable having the story — called “King & King” — read to their
children in school. Edwards gave the first and most definitive answer — a resounding and
instant “yes, absolutely” — although he added that it “might be a little tough” for second-
graders. Obama agreed with Edwards and revealed that his wife has already spoken to his
6- and 9-year-old daughters about same-sex marriage.

This is sick, as any normal child psychologist will testify, exposing young children to such behavior can create confusion and emotional issues down the road. But Obama seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that such a book would violate the values many families have. This is all about the government trampling on the rights of parents. This is NOT reform.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZKbB4HO6sk
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/...57aa4c00ea.htm
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArtic...03347424914951
http://thepage.time.com/pool-reportt...as-nea-speech/
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...c_educati.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298307,00.html
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...109.guest.html
 
cin said:
3mnkids1 said:
once again.. fact check~~ http://www.fact check.org/

once again.. liecount ~~ http://liecount.com/


I could find links all day long that support my position.. check fact check.. :laughing:
Click to expand...

Me too so who wants to stop first :laughing:
Click to expand...

This isn't a competition so I'd appreciate you not treating it as such. Of course you're free to do as you please but tackling the facts should be imperative in my opinion as well as many others I'm sure. Let's all continue to be grown adults.

I'd really like to see more concerns as Tammy stated about racists willing to do whatever it takes to keep Obama out of office. So far I haven't seen any regard to that. No one seems to want to touch on the links and quotes I have posted. I'm not here to bash anyone's opinion so please know that. I love having a civilized discussion/debate with Obama and McCain supporters alike. I welcome any and all opinions. No one will be attacking anyone for their opinion so please, everyone, feel free to talk openly!

I really liked last night's discussion/debate. New opinions, different views, new posters joining in. A big thanks to aurora for joining in regardless of whether we agree or not :cheers: Wolfie, with her well put posts on how why McCain works for her :cheers: Tammy, for coming in and talking from her heart :love:
 
Unions

The number issue for organized labor is legislation referred to as "Card Check.” This legislation is supported by Obama and would abolish the secret ballot, which is fundamental to any and all democratic systems. Then means that when employees vote on whether on not to allow a union to unionize a workplace, they have to indicate their support or opposition to the issue in front of union organizers. Obviously, the unions will be able to use this to intimate dissenters. This is an outrageous assault on democratic principles. If would be like if you were a Democrat and your boss was a Republican but he got to watch how you voted.

Even former liberal U.S. Senator George McGovern has denounced this legislation as “a disturbing and undemocratic overreach” and that it “runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement.”

Experts predict this intrusive legislation will allow the unions to organize many work places that didn’t previously want to be unionized, and thus it will deliver millions of dollars in new union dues, which, of course, will flood into the coffers of the Democrat Party.

Once again, this is NOT reform. Obama is supporting the interests of special interest groups over what’s best for the average American. Now you know why the unions are spending $300 million dollars to get people out to vote for Obama.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...008-09-01.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28080

Fairness Doctrine

Most people do not know what this is, but the “Fairness Doctrine” is legislation that would require all radio and TV stations to present all political viewpoints equally. The problem with this – aside from what I believe is unconstitutional intrusion into the marketplace – is that many radio stations, for example, have found a market for conservative talk shows and once they’re required to air an equal number of liberal talk shows, they will have financial problems since the market for liberal talk shows is far smaller. In order to survive financially, the radio stations will have to abolish all talk shows and focus on music, humor and other non-political formats.

This is not a joke and in fact this was the law until it was abolished by Ronald Reagan’s FCC for being an infringement on the First Amendment. The Democrats want to bring it back because it shuts up opposition to their plans to grow government, raise taxes, and implement new regulations. Indeed, House leader Nancy Pelosi has already announced she will support this. When questioned about his position on the Fairness Doctrine, Obama’s campaign refused to answer clearly:

[Obama] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having
about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as
possible…that is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public
broadcasting, as well as increased minority ownership of broadcast and print outlets

I’m not sure what is more disturbing, his evasive answer or the shocking new government intrusions into the communication marketplace that he is calling for. However, it is clear that his reference to “opening up the airwaves…to as many diverse views as possible” is mumble jumble for supporting the Fairness Doctrine.

As always, Obama’s agenda is about MORE POWER to big government (with his party in charge) and shutting down any public criticism of this agenda. He will not let freedom of speech get in the way. Needless to say, silencing free speech is NOT reform; it’s fascism.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2049374/posts


Endorsements and Praise for Obama by Extremist Publications and Leaders

This is a history-making process….and we will be missing it if we don’t do all we can to elect Barack Obama president.
Pepe Lozana, People’s Weekly World
(Official newspaper, US Communist Party)

[Obama’s] transformative candidacy …. would advance progressive politics for the long term

People’s Weekly World Editorial
(Official newspaper, US Communist Party)

[Obama] comes around just once in a lifetime. I hope for all progressives – each of us – (to) get involved. Don’t stand on the sidelines. Be active. Don’t let history pass you by.

Political Affairs editor Terri Albano
(U.S. Communist Party Publication)

[Obama] is the most progressive candidate for the U.S. Presidency

Fidel Castro
Communist Dictator of Cuba

[Obama] is an attractive, articulate and talented politician [whose] campaign has sparked a powerful surge.

Mark Soloman,
National co-Chair,
Committees of Correspondence
for Democracy and Socialism





Obama is the choice for change and renewal. He gives hope to millions of Americans and Europeans for a fairer world….Progressive Europeans are united in hope that Barack Obama will be the new president following the U.S. election.

Poul Nyrup
President, Party of European Socialists

A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s ‘Hope, Change and Unity’ campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move the nation forward with a progressive movement….
People’s Weekly World
Editorial

Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move…it was a dialectical leap ushering in a new era of struggle. Marx once compared (the) revolutionary new era of struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves not race of his movement on the surface.”

Frank Chapman
Executive Committee,
US Peace Council (US Communist Party
Front group)



This young man is the hope of the entire world that American will change and be made better.

Rev. Louis Farrakhan

His [Obama] campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change

Statement by the U. S. Communist Party
Conclusion:

The evidence is overwhelming. It is clear Obama is:

1) Not a reformer; he’s indebted to all the liberal special interest groups – the homosexual lobby, the union bosses, the trial lawyers, etc.
2) He’s has little history of working with the other party to address important issues
3) His policy stances are not conducive to reforming anything. There are all the same old big government solutions. Indeed, his record is been considered one of the worst by every fiscal conservative watchdog group.
4) His radical background and connections have deeply affected his worldview, making it almost impossible for him to find middle ground on any issue. Socialism is so much a part of his ideology that he is incapable of finding free market solutions to any of our problems. Private sector solutions don’t even enter his thinking.
5) The policy areas that we need reforms the most: heath care, education, energy, and the financial markets, Obama is either an obstacle or he is proposing more government; it is certainly not a reform agenda.
6) Obama is intent at shutting down all dissent. Whether its Card Check or radio talk show, he clearly is NOT tolerant of dissenting viewpoints.

However, due to a lazy or biased media, voters have been led to form opinions of the candidates based on situations which have little to do with reality. For example, most voters do not realize the Democrats have been in control of both houses of Congress since 2006. They control the purse and the policies. President Bush has essentially been a lame duck with little power to control anything.

And yet, the media has given voters the impression the Republicans are in charge because Bush occupies the White House. They have diverted everyone’s attention away from the Democrat-Congress and what they did or didn’t do. Indeed, since the Democrats took control two years ago, every economic indicator declined – unemployment, inflation, job creation, etc. The last time Bush was in charge, the economy was fairly solid. Here are the most common myths perpetrated by the media and echoed by the Democrats.

1) The oil crises was caused by the Republicans. Actually, it has been the Republicans who for decades have tried to increase the supply of oil and free up the nuclear power industry. For over twenty years the Democrats blocked these efforts. This is Obama’s position as well. If a person is voting for Obama due to high gas prices, then he’s voting for the same party which created this crisis.

2) The Republicans are responsible for the mortgage crises. Again, the Democrats have blocked every effort by Republicans to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 1992, 2000, 2004 and 2005 there were concerted efforts by Bush, Treasury Dept officials and Republican congressmen to reform these two agencies but such efforts were killed by the Democrats every time. The main target of these reform efforts was Fannie and Freddie’s risky investment portfolios. The Democrats were rewarded for not cooperating with the Republicans: the three top three recipients of PAC funds from these two agencies are Democrats, with Obama being the 2nd top recipient.

In May of 2006, Sen. McCain actually warned that “if Congress does not act, American
taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” McCain predicted the crises but could not get any Democrats to listen.

The Democrats, however, for nearly a decade, have pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to
guarantee more “affordable” mortgages, thus, as the Wall Street Journal notes, “abetting their
disastrous plunge into subprime and Alt-A loans.” In particular, Franklin Raines, the Clinton-
appointed former head of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2004, made it his top priority to make
mortgages easier to get for people with poor credit, few assets and too small of a down payment.
Raines is now an advisor to Obama’s campaign. Using the Community Reinvestment Act, the
Democrats politicized lending practices by forcing banks to make loans to people they wouldn’t
have normally made loans to.

The Democrats, race conscious as always, felt that existing lending practices discriminated against
minorities but the fact is that lenders are color blind. They make decisions based on a person's
credit. When the Democrats interfered with this process and started forcing lenders to make risky
loans, this was the beginning of the crises. After a decade of risky loans, we are now paying the
price. But again, this was the doing of the Democrats, not the Republicans.


3) The Republicans are responsible for the abuse of earmarks. Both parties have allowed this issue to simmer for years but the most serious effort to eliminate this abuse occurred in the last two years. Once again, the Democrats blocked the reforms.

Sorry Tracey your link does not work.
 
http://www.fa ct check.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

You'll have to copy and paste link. The word f a c t gets filtered on the board.

A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don't believe it.
Summary
A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.

Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.
Click to expand...

The ad claims "Obama's one accomplishment" in the realm of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners."

It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question
Click to expand...
 
cin, I'm confused. There's so much to read and none of your points are bolded. I don't know what points you are trying to make and I'm assuming you are making some. Forgive me if I'm wrong. Are you for or against unions? Are you for or against pork barreling and earmarks? A lot of your links are from blogs where someone has given an opinion and not necessarily a fact. Are you saying you share that same opinion on various policies? I'm just totally confused, but would love to know exactly what you are trying to say. And I welcome your opinion as well :sunny:
 
Well that's quite enough to chew on today so I hope that if someone has not made up their mind yet they will have more to consider. I also hope we enjoyed some humor today. I know I did.
 
cin said:
Well that's quite enough to chew on today so I hope that if someone has not made up their mind yet they will have more to consider. I also hope we enjoyed some humor today. I know I did.
Click to expand...

With all due respect you haven't posted anything that wasn't able to be fact checked and negated. A lot of us are confused on what it is we're supposed to be considering.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate;_ylt=Avpij82fWn1E1YKhiUnkRr6yFz4D

Sensitive Palin ethics report kept secret, for now

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Sworn to secrecy, Alaska lawmakers have begun reviewing a lengthy and politically sensitive investigative report that, when released Friday, could prove embarrassing to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

The report focuses on whether the first-term Alaska governor abused her authority by firing a state commissioner to settle a family dispute. But it is also expected to touch on whether Palin's husband meddled in state affairs and whether her administration inappropriately accessed employee medical records.

The inquiry, approved by a legislative committee's bipartisan vote, began before Republican presidential nominee John McCain named Palin his running mate. Since then, the case has been dogged by accusations of political influence.

The investigation focuses on her firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan. Monegan says Palin and her husband pressured him to fire Mike Wooten, a state trooper involved in a nasty divorce and custody dispute with the governor's sister. When Monegan resisted, he says, he was fired.

Palin's critics say that shows she used her office to settle family affairs.
Click to expand...


Todd should not have had access to her office or aides and she shouldn't have tried to abuse her position of governor.
 
I was watching Maddow last night and as she was interviewing a senator from Alaska when she got notice that the mccain/palin camp had released a statement "clearing her of wrongdoing".. :laughing: sooooo... they cleared themselves.. alrighty then.. obviously a ploy to get ahead of the story that the report will be released today and its not looking to good for her.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27105917/

Trying to head off a potentially embarrassing state ethics report on GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, campaign officials released their own report Thursday that clears her of any wrongdoing. :scratch: well everyone should be able to do that.. I didnt do it.. see, I wrote it down right here.. ok.. story over.. :laughing:
 
I have more info for the undecided voters. I realize this info may not be about the issues but having covered that yesterday today I will post things about Obama's friendships.

Let’s review this rogues gallery the media is desperately trying to keep under wraps:

Bill Ayers & Bernadine Dohrn

In the 70’s Bill Ayers and wife Bernadine Dohrn were members of a Marxist terrorist group called the Weather Underground which bombed 40 targets within the USA between 1969 and 1975 -- including the U.S. Capital, the State Department, military bases, the Pentagon, and the NYPD -- as part of their “revolution” against the US Government. Ayers called himself a “revolutionary communist.”

An FBI agent who infiltrated the group reported that Dohrn herself was responsible for bombing a San Francisco police station that killed one officer and injured two others. He also said Ayers was personally involved in constructing bombs and wanted to kill as many people as possible. When Dohrn was told about the Manson family killing of Sharon Tate, she responded, “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!”

The Weather Underground even cheered on the Vietnamese communists when they killed American boys and both Ayers and Dohrn received rings from the Vietnamese made of metal from downed American aircraft. After being on the run from the authorities for many years, Ayers and Dohrn surfaced in 1980 and got all charges against them dropped on a technicality. He is unrepentant, however, and told the NY Times in 2001, “I don’t regret setting bombs….I feel we didn’t do enough.”

The media has actually mentioned Ayers but keeps repeated Obama’s statement that Ayers was just “a guy in my neighborhood…He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” In fact, this is a lie as Obama was very close to Ayers for many years and served with him on various boards up until 2001. Ayers founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) and named Obama as its first chairman. The CAC gave funds to extremist groups such as the Arab American Action Network, a group headed by Rashid Khalidi, an anti-Israel professor and former PLO spokesman. For four years, Obama and Ayers doled out money to radical nutcase groups. The two also served together on the board of a foundation called the Woods Charitable Fund, another group that funded “progressive” or leftist causes.

But the two go back even further as Ayers and Dohrn actually hosted at their home the initial organizing meeting for Obama’s first State Senate campaign in 1995. Clearly, Ayers was not just a “neighbor” but also rather an ideological soul mate. Hard-core extremists such as Ayers and Dohrn do NOT back mainstream candidates for office.

An independent group that tried to get this info to the public about the Ayers connection is now being harassed by Obama’s attorneys. And no, Ayers and Dohrn have never “moderated” like some in the media claim. At a 2007 reunion of radicals, Ayers called America a place of authoritarianism and Dohrn called America a “beast” and said that “America is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. “

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pubs.html?id=640
http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008...hts-of-20.html
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles....04729375940845
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dba7_...eature=related
http://www.americanthinker.com/print...r_friends.html

Rashid Khalidi

Khalidi is a Palestinian-American and former spokesman for the PLO’s press agency, WAFA, from 1976-1982. At the time, the PLO was designated a terrorist group by the US Government and they were, and still are, dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Not surprisingly, he is a professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University. The Los Angeles Times has reported that Obama is a “friend and frequent dinner companion” of Khalidi.

Indeed, Khalidi held a fundraiser for Obama’s ill-fated congressional bid in 2000 where Obama made statements in support of the Palestinian cause. As a board member of the radical Woods Foundation, Obama also gave funding to the Khalidi’s organization, the Arab American Action Network, an allegedly “community service” group that holds extremist views on Israel. We also know that Obama, along with Ayers and Dohrn, attending a good bye party for Khalidi and that Khalidi told the mostly Palestinian-American crowd, “You will not have a better senator under any circumstance.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...231,full.story
http://www.jewishpress.com/content.cfm?contentid=30283
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pubs.html?id=640

Mazen Asbahi

Mr. Asbahi was the Muslim outreach coordinator for the Obama campaign. However, he resigned after only two weeks due to revelations that he was associated with extremist individuals and groups.
He was involved with a fund called the “Allied Assets Advisor Fund,” whose board included nut cases such as Jamal Said, an Imam at an extremist Islamic Mosque in Illinois. Allied Assets is a subsidiary of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), founded by Muslim Brotherhood members, the group that many AL Qaeda members came out of. A 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document lists NAIT as among the groups who are working together to “eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within….” Imam Said is also a Muslim Brotherhood member. But the Obama campaign knew all about this beforehand – they just don’t view radicalism in the same way normal Americans do.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/744

David Axelrod

Axelrod is one of Obama’s “image makers” who has done much to make Obama look like someone he isn’t, but that’s par for course for Axelrod who has a history of representing far-left clients. Ironically, while Axelrod’s strategy is to ignore any Media inquiries into Obama’s radical associations (and if the media does, by a miracle, do a story on this topic, then Obama denounces the person), he himself came out of the same radical environment that spawned Obama. His Mother was a writer for PM, a newspaper whose staff was full of communists and had at least one writer on the payroll of the Soviet intelligence agency. Axelrod is also an advisor to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, the head of the notoriously corrupt Chicago Democrat machine.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3275
 
Alice Palmer

Obama was selected by State Senator Alice Palmer to replace her when she ran for a congressional seat. Apparently Palmer introduced Obama to the Chicago hard left, so one can say that Palmer launched Obama’s political career. As for Palmer, she was a pro-Soviet apologist at the peak of the Cold War. She actually served on the board of the US Peace Council, a group identified by the FBI as a Communist Party front group, and she attended the 1983 World Peace Council meeting in Prague that was organized by Soviet intelligence in order to launch the infamous “nuclear freeze” movement in America. Of course, this nuclear freeze would have only affected American weapons and thus would have guaranteed Soviet nuclear superiority. She even wrote an article for the Communist Party newspaper and boasted about the “Soviet plan to provide people with higher wages and better education.” And this Soviet propagandist selected Obama to be her successor!

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...04210671922915
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/080526

Mike Klonsky

Klonski was a communist comrade of Ayers and Dohrn but while the later two became violent Marxists, Klonsky became a Maoist (as if Mao didn’t kill millions!). Klonsky was hired by one of the radical groups Ayers operated and then he surfaces as the official blogger for the Obama campaign. As soon as it got out to the media that Klonsky was yet another communist wacko friend of Obama’s, the campaign shut down the blog.

http://www.americanthinker.com/print...r_friends.html

Frank Marshall Davis

Davis was Obama’s mentor when he was a teenager living in Hawaii. In fact, Obama refers to him in his book, Dreams From My Father, as simply “Frank.” Apparently, he had hoped no one would figure out who “Frank” was; well, fortunately, communist intellectuals familiar with Obama’s career have filled in the blanks for us and identified the mentor as Frank Marshall Davis, a hard-core Soviet apologist and legendary Communist Party activist in Hawaii. Davis was a complete nut who even wrote poetry praising the Soviet military (like this line: “Smash on, victory-eating Red Army”).

Davis was investigated by both the FBI and Congress for his pro-Soviet activities and even appeared before Senate Internal Security Subcommittee where he refused to deny his Communist Party membership. You can read part of his FBI file in the link below. Davis attacked Christianity, America, Capitalism, the free enterprise system, and basically everything America stands for. Davis was NOT a casual acquaintance but rather someone who spent considerable time with Obama. Obama’s grandfather considered Davis “a strong black male figure” and a “positive” influence so he introduced Davis to Obama in order to encourage a role model relationship. And a Marxist mentor he was. I’m sure Obama got to hear all about the glories of the Bolshevik revolution.

http://patdollard.com/2008/08/red-fa...arshall-davis/
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...03953050138122
http://www.usasurvival.org/marshall.fbi.files.html
http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas...r-up-continues
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...02827467707515
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/print/...st-connections


Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky was a Marxist who taught advance organizing techniques to far-left activists. He founded a foundation called Industrial Areas Foundation in 1940 and its graduates in turn trained Obama to be a “community organizer,” a term most Americans think has to do with charity, such as feeding the poor, but in the Alinsky world, it means using agitation to harass community schools, banks, and institutions which, in the mind of Alinsky followers, are all part of the evil free enterprise system. Obama also worked for ACORN, another group founded upon Alinsky principles. Alinsky is regarded by Obama as one of his heroes. To understand Obama’s socialist worldview, one needs to understand Alinsky’s hostility to corporations, as when he stated, ‘America’s corporations are a spiritual slum….and their arrogance is the major threat to our future as a free society.’ Alinsky, an atheist, dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to ‘the very first radical…who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.’

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series8.aspx

Tony Rezko

A charter member of the Chicago Democrat political machine, Tony Rezko is a Syrian by birth who was convicted last June of 16 counts of corruption for trading on his clout as a top advisor and fundraiser to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. He also happens to be one of Obama’s closest friends and a fundraiser for his campaigns. Indeed, Obama purchased a $1.95 million dollar house for $300,000 less than its asking price because Rezko purchased the adjoining lot for $625,000. Rezko then turned around and sold part of the adjoining lot to Obama for $104,500. All and all, Obama saved probably around $400,000. While no laws were broken with this real estate deal, it was clear this was payback for all the favors Obama had done for Rezko.

For example, Obama helped Rezko get $14 million in government funds for his housing projects inside Obama’s district. Using a government position to engage in such quid pro quo activity is illegal and Obama should have been investigated. This is a perfect example of everything that is wrong in government today but Obama is certainly NOT the one to clean it up. Obama then lied and said “I’ve never done any favors for him” but the letters Obama wrote to government officials on behalf of Rezko have been found and the Sun Times link below exposes this lie. Aside from the sweetheart real estate deal, Obama also received $168,000 in campaign contributions from Rezko. Adding to that what he save from the real estate deal, Obama has received almost $600,000 dollars from Rezko. This is a reformer?

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...234084813.html
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...bama13.article
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...bama18.article
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...04297980806710
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pubs.html?id=640
 
Saul Mendelson

Obama was so surrounded by communists and socialists much of his life that it appears that he didn’t really think such people were that controversial, even though they advocated abolishment of capitalism, private property rights, and even in some cases, Democracy. It says a lot about Obama’s worldview. In 1998, Obama openly spoke at the funeral service for Saul Mendelson, a leader of the Chicago socialist community. Mendelson was a member of various Trotskyite groups before settling on a slightly less radical socialist party. In 1958 Mendelson founded an event called the Debs Dinner, which was the high point of the Chicago socialist calendar. He became a leader of the main Chicago Socialist group, the Democratic Socialists of America, whose newsletters constantly wrote favorable things about Obama, even telling its socialist readers that Obama’s views were “well within the mainstream of European social democracy.” No wonder Obama was cheered when he delivered the speech in Germany.

http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/02/o...tionships.html

Dr. Khalid al-Mansour

Dr. al-Mansour is an African-American Muslim who serves as an advisor to a Saudi billionaire and who mentored the founding members of the Black Panthers. In a recent article, it was revealed that al-Mansour had asked the Manhattan borough president to write a letter of support to Harvard in order to get Obama admitted. Dr. al-Mansour is a radical black nationalist and an outspoken enemy of Israel. His books and articles are full on anti-American and anti-Semitic rhetoric and he even posits wild conspiracy theories such as how America is plotting genocide against black Americans. He says the Jews stole Israel “the same way the Christians stole the land from the Indians in America.”

Dr. al-Mansour has represented Saudi interests in the US for decades and is close to Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, even sitting on the board of Talal’s investment vehicle, Kingdom Holdings. Alwaleed is the nephew of King Abdallah, the King of Saudi Arabia, and is ranked by Forbes as the 19th wealthiest person on the planet. The Prince’s Kingdom Foundation has contributed money to Muslim “charities” who are led by individuals who have been indicted on terrorism-related charges.

What is interesting about this relationship is that al-Mansour was also raising funds to underwrite Obama’s education, according to a friend who has confided this to a reporter (see video below) What’s more, is that at the time al-Mansour was raising money for Obama, he was representing top members of the Saudi Royal family seeking to do business in the US. Why would a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia be raising money for Obama? Did the Saudis have an interest in advancing Obama’s career? We don’t know the answer. Obama won’t talk about it.

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obam...03/127490.html
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...05508174916939

Rob Malley

Rob Malley was a foreign policy advisor to the Obama campaign until he was fired after revelations that he had meetings with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. (If you’re a Jewish supporter of Obama, you need to know the extend of the con job) But the Obama camp must of know of his views long before this; they just hoped no one would notice. Malley has a long history of anti-Israel writings and he heads a Middle East think-tank funded in part by anti-Israel billionaire activist George Soros; Moreover, he comes from a family of extremists. His father, Simon Malley, was a founder of the Egyptian Communist party, was a close friend PLO leader Yasser Arafat and clearly a supporter of the terrorist group, PLO, at the peak of it terrorism directed toward the West. He was even kicked out of France for his pro-terrorist activities.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...east_expe.html
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1437

Rev. Jeremiah Wright

This is one of the few shady individuals the media has talked about and then only did so because clips of Wright spewing out his hatred started to appear on YouTube. Obama distanced himself from Wright but understand that he attended Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years – 1000 Sundays – and thus had to have heard virulent anti-white and anti-American sermons long before his phony denials that he never heard Wright say such things.

Surely, this move was only a public relations move since Wright married Obama and his wife, baptized his children, and according to Obama, “strengthened my faith.” But in what way?

It is questionable as to whether or not the United Church of Christ can even be considered a Christian denomination today. After all, there are certain tenets Christian theologians agree on that are basic to the Christian faith but the United Church of Christ has thrown some of those tenets out the window. The traditional family unit, for example, is considered a sacred arrangement given to us by God and yet this denomination supports homosexual marriages, transgenderism, gay clergy, you name it. It even supports partial birth abortion.

On economic issues, the church mirrors the Socialist party in its positions, and during the Cold War, they supported the “Nuclear Freeze” movement initiated by Soviet intelligence to stop Reagan’s arms build-up, which of course led to the end of the Cold War.

This denomination can more accurately be described as embracing a humanist or secular faith than a Christian faith. But as radical as the United Church of Christ is, Obama’s particular church in Chicago is even further to the left. It is a believer in “Black Liberation Theology” a bizarre heretical belief system that has little in common with Christianity.

Most people saw footage of Rev. Wright on television saying “Not God bless America, but God **** America,” but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Wright also teaches that “Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people.” He refers to America as the “US of KKKA” and says that “America is still the No. 1 killer in the world.” He even preaches that the AIDS virus was manufactured by the US Government – on purpose – in order to kill black people. He’s anti-Semitic and says the America was attacked on 9/11 because of its “racist” policies.

Trinity’s website—before it was sanitized – stated that “the vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book Black Power and Black Theology.” Dr. Cone is one of America’s leading Liberation theology pastors and an out and out racist. Cone says that “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community.” This theology also challenges the basic Christian doctrine that Jesus died on the cross to redeem human kind form sin. This doctrine is so basic to the Christian faith that churches who embrace this can’t be defined as a Christian church.

Here’s a nugget of Cone’s theology:

If god is not for us, and against White people, then he is a murderer, and we have better kill him

Or this one:

The goal of Black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated
from alien gods.

To hear Rev. Wright defend Cone and Black Liberation Theology, listen to the clip below. It is clear that Wright and Cone are hate mongers and racists who long ago abandoned real Christian theology. And Wright is the crackpot who “strengthened” Obama’s faith? The only thing he could have strengthened is Obama’s obsession with race that seems to dominate his political career. One thing is for sure, if John McCain attended a White Supremacist Church for twenty years, would he even be able to run for office? I doubt it.

Even Wright knows that Obama has to pretend like he’s distancing himself from him; indeed, with surprising candor, Wright stated recently that once Obama’s enemies find out about his trip to Libya with racist black leader Louis Farrakhan, “a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.” Wright even admitted that Obama told him that he needs to keep out of public for awhile.

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=8EICbbJ8Prg
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff221.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...0/ai_n25449321
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Printer.aspx?id=72267
http://ucccoalition.org/programs/yya/support
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama.../06/78440.html


Jodie Evans

Evans is a leader of Code Pink, a far-left anti-war woman’s group and a “bundler” for Obama which means she raises money for him. At last report, she raised $50,000 for Obama.

She has visited Venezuela where she met with socialist leader Hugo Chavez to show her support for his dictatorial regime. Code Pink is most famous for harassing wounded US soldiers at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center with signs outside the hospital that said things like: “Maimed for a Lie.”

Far from being normal housewives, as the media portrays them, Code Pink is full of long time committed Marxists and socialists. Most of the leaders of Code Pink earned their Marxist spurs working for groups in the 1980’s that were supporting the oppressive Nicaraguan communist regime.

Code Pink’s founder is Medea Benjamin, who told the San Francisco Chronicle about how she felt on her first pilgrimage to Cuba in the early 1980s: "[compared to the USA) it seemed like I died and went to heaven."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167017,00.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles...8-CDA0EEBACE71

What to We Make of This Rogue’s Gallery?

This list of 14 people is only a small sampling of Obama’s extremist friends and supporters. It could easily be three times longer because Obama surrounded himself with extremists. Why? Well, he is one of them. The media – even Fox News – keeps portraying these associations as isolated and random relationships and then when Obama issues his perfunctory statement distancing himself from them, the
story is dropped. But these are not random people; these are Obama’s mentors, supporters, campaign workers, enablers, funders; these are the people who advanced Obama’s political career. Obama spoke at extremist functions, attended their dinners, worked with extremist groups, gave funds to extremist groups—this is HIS NETWORK. It should be disturbing to most Americans that a person running for the presidency comes from a militant segment of the American political spectrum that detests everything we stand for: private property rights, America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, the free enterprise system, etc.

But we shouldn’t be surprised – Obama was raised to be a radical. His father was an unrepentant socialist who tried to push the Kenyan government far to the left:

As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. advised the pro-Western Kenyan
Government there to ‘redistribute’ income through higher taxes. He also demonized
Corporations and called for massive government ‘investment’ in social programs….
’theoretically,’ he wrote, ‘there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing
100% of incomes so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.’

Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, was a leftist as well and an atheist. Obama claims his mother came from a conservative Methodist or Baptist family in Kansas but this appears to be yet another attempt by Obama to show some connection to ordinary Americans. The reality is that the church his mother was raised in was a leftist Unitarian church in Bellevue, WA that was nicknamed “the little red church” due to its Marxist leanings. Even Dunham’s friends described her as a “fellow traveler,” meaning that while she wasn’t a member of the Communist Party, she identified with their views.

Dunham first husband’s, Barack Obama, Sr. was a Muslim, as was her second husband, but her God was the God of socialists: Big government.

Of course, we can’t forget that Ann’s father was close to Hawaiian Communist leader Frank Marshall Davis and he introduced Davis to his grandson as he felt Obama needed a mentor.

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

http://onemansthoughts.wordpress.com...obama-soetoro/
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...03952499910291
 
John McCain and the Keating Five, What Every Voter MUST Know

http://mccainkeatingfive.com/?p=6

During the 2000 Republican Presidential Primaries, Slate.com writer Chris Suellentrop wrote an excellent in-depth feature article about John McCain and his role in the Keating Five. This is a must read article for every American, especially for anyone who thinks John McCainis a hero.

Two Important things to know before you read the article:

1. John McCain admitted to intentionally filing false income tax returns to defraud the IRS by not claiming thousands of dollars in gifts McCain and his family received from Charles Keating and Keating’s company. Years later, when the IRS noticed Keating’s company had written off the gifts to McCain as business expenses, McCain fessed up and admitted filing false returns and made a “donation” to the U.S. Treasury to cover the amount he defrauded American tax payers. (Committing tax fraud is one of the least offensive things John McCain has done over his career, but this article just focuses on his role in the Keating Five, and the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal of the late 1980’s-early 1990’s). McCain also leaked information about the Keating Five to the press multiple times in an effort to appear above the other Senators in the scandal. A 1989 Phoenix New Times article summed it up best with their title - McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five.

2. John McCain’s wife, Cindy McCain, along with her father, made a $359,000 investment in retail property owned by Charles Keating in 1986, a year before John McCain first met with federal regulators on behalf of Keating. Keating was later convicted on 73 counts of fraud, conspiracy, and other crimes. Years later, Cindy McCain sold her investment for $15,000,000.

For anyone not aware of the Keating Five, here’s a very simple summary:

Charles Keating owned a savings and loan in California. He was illegally using the money of his bank’s customers to give loans to himself and friends that they didn’t have to repay, and to speculate on risky real estate investments, which was strictly forbidden by U.S. law (and was one cause of the Great Depression).

When the feds found out what was going on and launched an investigation into Keating and his company, Keating called five U.S. Senators whom he had wined, dined, and lavished with hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations and personal gifts.

Keating asked the five Senators to tell the feds to bug off, and the five Senators, later known as the Keating Five, obliged, meeting with federal investigators twice and pressuring them to stop investigating Keating’s crimes. They bought Keating some time, but the feds didn’t give up and eventually Keating was nailed. The reason the feds were so persistent was because Keating wasn’t playing with mere chump change. Keating blew $3.4 billion through illegal personal loans and bad investments, and the FDIC had to reimburse Keating’s customers who had been ripped off.

(Background Info - Keating wasn’t the only Savings and Loan owner who was committing fraud, 20% of the S&L’s that failed during that three year period were found to have been caused by fraud and/or insider trading. The failure of the Lincoln Savings and Loan and other S&L’s pushed the country into a recession, costing the U.S. government $126 billion dollars in FDIC insurance payouts to investors. All of this came to a crescendo during the first year of the presidency of George H.W. Bush, who pushed through the S&L bailout plan to keep the economy afloat.)

When the involvement of the Keating Five was made public, a scandal erupted and the Senate Ethics Committee launched their own investigation into whether the Keating Five had violated Senate ethics rules. The other four Senators left office either immediately or within one term. John McCain was formally rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising “poor judgment” for intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Keating, but because McCain accepted Keating’s gifts of travel and vacations to Bahama while McCain was a member of the House of Representatives (he served one term there before moving to the Senate), the Senate claimed they had no jurisdiction to censure McCain. (However the meetings to pressure federal regulators occurred during the first few months of McCain serving in the Senate in 1987, so that excuse doesn’t hold up)

John McCain then went back to the drawing board and re-invented himself as “the Straight-Talk Express” and the media gobbled it up. “Tax-Evading-Criminal” doesn’t sound as catchy as “Straight-Shooting-War-Hero”.

Ever since the scandal, when McCain lies today, it’s never questioned, because he’s a “straight talker”. The man has more skeletons in his closet than any politician in history. The Keating Five is just one bone.

After reading the Slate article, ask yourself: if Obama or any other candidate had a scandal such as the Keating Five in their past, would the mainstream media never question it? Could any other candidate even have a political career after the Keating Five? For the other four Senators, the answer is no. And while Charles Keating went to prison for his role in the scandal, John McCain swept it under the rug and could soon be President of the United States of America.

Read the full Slate.com article here.

The FDIC also has a list of recommendations for further reading on Charles Keating and the Lincoln Savings and Loan.
 
McCain's Church Hates America, Clinton's Friends Do Too -- But Let's Get the Black Guy (Or Not?) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/mccains-church-hates-ame_b_92140.html

Obama called us to our better selves today. Never mind that! Here's the latest new outrage from Obama's pastor! FOX News, CNN, MSNBC are all about to start playing new secret footage of Rev. Wright screaming:

If you lust after any woman grab a knife and gouge out your right eye and throw it in the trash. And if you're going to use your hand for masturbation cut it off or you're going to hell. I haven't come here to make peace but to bring war. I'm here to set a man against and his father and a daughter against her mother and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me and who doesn't want to get killed for me is damned. You mess with my people and you'll wish you'd hanged a stone around your neck and drowned yourself before I'm done with you!

Except, Obama's pastor didn't say any of that -- Jesus did.

* Email
* Print
* Comments

Buzz up!on Yahoo!

So I guess all Christians must be disqualified from running for president. How can we trust any candidate that follows a violent Jewish-supremacist like Jesus? He called a woman of another race a dog just for talking to him! He said his enemies would all burn in a lake of fire...

There may be a few secularists out there who have never been to old-time church but the rest of us know that hyperbole, overstatement and ranting and raving (from the left or right) is a time honored style of preaching in just about every denomination -- other than in particularly boring Unitarian churches.

Religious biblical overstatement started with Jesus, actually with God the Father, who tended to do things like kill the whole of humankind to make a point to Noah. Most churchgoing Christians know how to take this stuff in the Bible, or from our preachers. That's why most Christians don't lop off their arms and penises when they feel lust. That's why even though Jesus said he only came to save Jews some of us "filthy dogs" (as Jesus called non-Jews) still believe in him. That is why reasonable people of good will who hear a black (or white) pastor saying "God damn America" in the context of a moralistic tirade know they're watching theater.

But fair is fair. So where are the clips of me in Falwell's pulpit (back in the early 1980s before I dropped out of the evangelical movement) preaching to five thousand cheering white fundamentalists while I shouted; "God hates America for the murder of the unborn! We should be destroyed!"

When my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- and I were the guests of Jerry Falwell at Liberty Baptist College, Falwell said to us quite casually and seriously, while speaking of the "homosexual problem," that: "If I had a dog that did what they do I take it out and shoot it." And when it came to saying God was damning America he and Pat Robertson sided with the 9/11 hijackers by saying the terrorist's actions served America right and were God's punishment. Yet John McCain went to Liberty Baptist College and spoke for Falwell, in order to "mend fences" with the Religious Right. He said he no longer believed that Falwell was "an agent of intolerance." And Rudy Giuliani gladly accepted Robertson's endorsement. So much for the Republican "mainstream."

Fair is fair. So where are the clips -- playing incessantly next to Hillary Clinton's picture -- of her antiwar friends and Bill Clinton's fellow draft dodger members of the New Left, cursing and damning America during Vietnam War protests and since? The company that Bill and Hillary kept in the late 1960s through the 1970s was defined by damning America and sometimes by rooting for the North Vietnamese. Anti-American spewing also came from left wing white preachers. Read the fiery sermons of the late Episcopal bishop of New York Paul Moore, Jr. who raged against America.

Bishop Moore, in his 1997 autobiography, Presences: A Bishop's Life in the City, wrote that the end of the Cold War had left the United States "like a wounded rooster crowing on the top of the dung heap." Blaming "corporate greed and lust" as well as "unbridled nationalism" for manufacturing causes for war, Moore cursed America as often as he served communion.

McCain is an Episcopalian. Where are the clips of the anti-American rantings of Bishop Moore and not a few other Episcopalian pastors and bishops, next to McCain's picture?

Want to play this smear-by-association game? Okay, while McCain was a prisoner of war his bishop Moore was rooting for McCain's torturers. How can McCain be a member of that denomination and be a real American, let alone commander in chief? Isn't it time he explains his anti-American white associations? Isn't it time McCain gives a speech to explain what it means to be a white in bed with hate-America white liberals..?

Okay, I'm being sarcastic, this is silly. And that's the point. From the other guy's point of view all religion and politics is extreme.

Preaching is a style of communication with its own cadences that is easy to mock and/or twist-by-sound-bite. The Clinton's smear machine, now tied to the FOX smear-machine, is playing a very dirty game. And the Clinton's know better.

As I recall both Clintons have been in plenty of black churches and understand the preaching style. If the Clintons were authentic progressives, or even authentic patriots, or just ordinary decent Americans, or just members of the Democratic Party who wanted their party to win in November, they would have led a furious defense of Obama and his pastor by putting things in perspective.

If the Clintons were decent people Obama would never have had to give a speech on being black and being a presidential candidate, let alone explain his pastor. The Clintons would have stepped up for him. And if FOX News, MSNBC, CNN et al. weren't playing a filthy game for ratings this wouldn't be a story.

As Obama said in his March 18, speech:

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed.



Part of that discrimination that needs addressing is to stop playing the sorts of games that have been played by the white Republicans and the Clintons.

As Jesus said to the Pharisees: "Ye hypocrites!"

Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of "CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost Al
 
Over Two Dozen Lies Refuted About Ayers And Obama
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/30-lies-refuted-about-aye_b_132109.html



The gutter politics of the McCain campaign is reaching down once again to denounce Obama for his distant past links to Bill Ayers in an unprecedented guilt-by-association attack for a presidential campaign.

Sarah Palin declared, "This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country."

The New York Times article, which prompted Palin's remarks, actually concluded that "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers."

CNN Political Ticker evaluated Palin's "palling" charges and concluded, "False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now palling around, or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are....CNN's review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the volunteer projects in which the two men were involved."

Back in February, the Washington Post reported in a fact check, But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one.(Washington Post, 2/18/08)

As part of a larger project where I'm compiling a long list of all the lies and smears spread about Obama, here are over two dozen lies about Ayers and Obama.

Tonight's Hannity's America featured more of these absurd lies about Obama and Ayers in Hannity's infomercial for idiocy, including an amazing interview with legendary anti-Semitic crackpot Andy Martin:

LIE: "My view is that the community organizer was really a sham event. Bill Ayers was testing him."(Andy Martin, Hannity's America, October 5, 2008, "Obama and His Friends: History of Radicalism")
TRUTH: Bill Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's community organizing job. It's pure lunacy to imagine that Ayers was "testing" Obama.

LIE: Obama's "community organizing is a grand scheme perpetuated by none other than William Ayers."(Sean Hannity, Hannity's America, October 5, 2008, "Obama and His Friends: History of Radicalism")
TRUTH: Obama's community organizing was not a vast conspiracy for revolution devised by Bill Ayers.

LIE: "They live half a mile from William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist" and "Just a half a mile from those homes is Louis Farrakhan."(Hannity's America, October 5, 2008, "Obama and His Friends: History of Radicalism")
TRUTH: It's true, of course, that Obama lives in this same neighborhood, as do tens of thousands of other people who presumably are also guilty by geographical association. The logic of this argument would be, if you live half a mile from a sex offender, then you agree with child molesters.

LIE: Obama and Ayers "appeared together at various public engagements...it would seem that they are more than just a little bit friendly."(Sean Hannity, Hannity's America, October 5, 2008, "Obama and His Friends: History of Radicalism")
TRUTH: Appearing on a speaking panel is not a sign of friendship. There is no evidence that Obama had any role in ever inviting Ayers to speak.

LIE: In 1995, Ayers and Dohrn "hosted a political coming out party for a young Barack Obama."(Sean Hannity, Hannity's America, October 5, 2008, "Obama and His Friends: History of Radicalism")
TRUTH: This was an event for Alice Palmer, not a "coming-out party" for Obama. Obama was invited by Palmer to the event.

But long before tonight's Hannity, the right-wing has been spreading a series of lies about Obama and Ayers.

LIE: "Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist."
TRUTH: Bill Ayers is not, and apparently never was, a terrorist. The conventional definition of a terrorist is someone who tries to kill innocent people for political purposes. As Fact check.org noted, In fact, nobody died as a result of bombings in which Ayers said he participated as part of the Weather Underground. (Fact check.org)

LIE: "I'm sure he's very patriotic, but his relationship with Mr. Ayers is open to question....Because, if you're going to associate and have as a friend and serve on a board and have a guy kick off your campaign that says he's unrepentant, that he wished he'd bombed more. And then, the worst thing of all, that I think really indicates Senator Obama's attitude, is he had the incredible statement that he compared Mr. Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist -- an unrepentant terrorist, with Senator Tom Coburn. Senator Coburn, a physician who goes to Oklahoma on the weekends and brings babies into life.' (John McCain, April 20, 2008, ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos)
TRUTH: Obama was not friends with Ayers. Ayers did not kick off Obama's campaign. And Obama was not comparing Ayers' actions with Coburn. Obama was pointing out that he works with people even when he disagrees with them.

LIE: "Obama's oldest friend in politics is a murderer and unrepentant terrorist. Why are they friends?"(ExposeObama.com email, Sept. 7, 2008)
TRUTH: Ayers isn't Obama's oldest friend in politics.

LIE: Ayers was "Obama's boss."(Jerome Corsi, p. 147)
TRUTH: The chair of a foundation board is not the boss of the members.

LIE: Jerome Corsi claimed Alice "Palmer would never have introduced Obama to the Hyde Park political community at the Ayres-Dohrn home unless she saw an affinity between Ayers and Dohrn's radical leftist history, her own history of far-leftist politics, and the politics of Barack Obama."(p. 137)
TRUTH: The event wasn't held primarily for Obama. It was Palmer's own announcement that she would run for Congress. Obama was there as Palmer's endorsed successor for her Senate seat, but there's no evidence that he had any role in deciding to hold it at Ayers' home.

LIE: Jerome Corsi claims about Obama: "either he did not know Ayers and Dohrn are still radical leftists--in which case he is implausibly naive--or Obama did know, which would confirm he joined with Ayers and Dohrn because Obama too continues to believe, albeit silently and secretly, in the Far Left's radical agenda."(p. 140)
TRUTH: Obama probably knew Ayers was a leftist, but he didn't care. Obama believes in the notion of a free society, where you work with people you disagree with.

LIE: "Even today, Ayers appears to hold the same radical political beliefs he did in the Weather Underground, and Obama had to know that was also the case when he first met Ayers in 1995."(Jerome Corsi, p. 147)
TRUTH: Corsi doesn't explain how Obama "had to know" Ayers' views on politics when he first met him. Telepathy? Mind-reading?

LIE: David Freddoso calls Obama's distant connection with Bill Ayers "a remarkable relationship for a presidential nominee to have."(p. 122)
TRUTH: It reality, it's not remarkable at all. The notion that people should resign from foundations and refuse to speak in public in order to avoid any connection to a former radical never convicted of a crime is absurd.

LIE: "The major media simply have not reported on Obama's two years at New York's Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers."(Tony Blankley, September 24, 2008)
TRUTH: Thousands upon thousands of people lived near Bill Ayers in Manhattan. Obama didn't know Ayers.

LIE: Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval. (Stanley Kurtz, Wall Street Journal)
TRUTH: Kurtz has no evidence to support his claim. Ayers was one of several people involved in starting the group, and was not its guiding spirit. According to the New York Times reporting, Obama was recruited by other CAC leaders who knew him through the Joyce Foundation.

LIE: Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda. (Stanley Kurtz, Wall Street Journal)
TRUTH: Kurtz has no evidence that Obama and Ayers worked as a team. Ayers attended six meetings of the group along with Obama.

LIE: "Obama is hanging around with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. By the way, Bill Ayers advertised himself as being a communist with a small c just when he was beginning to
partner with Obama on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (Stanley Kurtz, Hudson Institute, Washington DC, October 1, 2008)
TRUTH: Contrary to this McCarthyist attack, there's no evidence that Obama ever knew that Ayers supposedly called himself a communist, nor is that a good reason for Obama to end his work on school reform and charitable activities.

LIE: "who provided Obama with the only executive experience he has ever had in his young life? Bill Ayers, unrepentant domestic terrorist, communist revolutionary... (Joseph Farah, World Net Daily, October 2, 2008)
TRUTH: Ayers did not provide Obama with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge job. And Obama has also had executive experience in community organizing, running a voter registration drive, as well as running his campaigns. The New York Times reported, "In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama's appointment. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year."(Scott Shane, New York Times, October 4, 2008)

LIE: "Barack Obama is friends with Ayers, defending him as quote 'respectable and mainstream.'"(American Issues Project ad, August 2008)
TRUTH: David Axelrod described them as "friendly," not friends. Obama didn't call Ayers respectable and mainstream (although Ayers now is); Obama's campaign on his website posted an op-ed in the press that described Ayers that way.

LIE: "I can't understand why somebody who wants to be president of the United States, I'll be perfectly honest with you, would want to associate or not condemn the actions of people in the past."(Paul Ragonese, April 27, 2008, Fox News' Hannity's America)
TRUTH: Obama has condemned the past actions of Bill Ayers and called him somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago. (April 16, 2008 debate)

LIE: About Bill Ayers, "Barack Obama really couldn't bring himself to say 'you know, I really don't like that guy.' That was too much for him to say. He had to talk about what a decent guy he is and what a good professor."(Jim Geraghty, "Hype: The Obama Effect")
TRUTH: There is no record of Obama during the campaign calling Ayers "decent" and "a good professor." In fact, Obama really did bring himself to criticize Ayers, denouncing him during a Democratic debate as "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago."

LIE: "Obama was feted at a fundraising event" at Ayers' home.("Hype: The Obama Effect")
TRUTH: Obama never had a fundraising event at Ayers' home.

LIE: Barack Obama and Bill Ayers had a close working relationship...the two of them were running the foundation together. (Stanley Kurtz, Fox News Channel's Fox and Friends, September 29, 2008)
TRUTH: Kurtz has no evidence of a "close working relationship" beyond attending a few meetings together. The notion that Obama and Ayers were the only ones running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge is absolutely false.

LIE: "The most important smoking gun is that Barack Obama was funding Bill Ayers' radical educational projects."(Stanley Kurtz, Fox News Channel's Fox and Friends, September 29, 2008)
TRUTH: This is false. Obama was the president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, not its dictator. There's no evidence that Obama made any funding decisions. Moreover, it would have been completely unprofessional for anyone, including Obama, to ban Bill Ayers from receiving funding for educational projects because of alleged radical activities decades earlier which Ayers was never convicted of. Kurtz has no evidence that projects were judged based on anything other than their merits. This is a pure smear by association.

LIE: Emails "give us strong evidence that there may have been a cover-up in Bill Ayers' role choosing Barack Obama."(Stanley Kurtz, Fox News Channel's Fox and Friends, September 29, 2008)
TRUTH: This is a fabrication. The email Kurtz is referring to shows absolutely no kind of cover up. In fact, it shows exactly the opposite. In his blog, Kurtz quotes the entire email Ken Rolling wrote to CAC founders Warren Chapman and Anne Hallett and notes that Sam Dillon, Education Reporter for the New York Times, was working on an article. Rolling wrote about Dillon, He is trying to understand how Barack got 'picked' for the CAC board, by whom, why, etc. - I have avoided that question head-on though I believe Barack was Debbie Leff's/Joyce nomination." This email reveals no kind of cover-up, and the New York Times article found several sources that said Obama was not picked by Ayers.

LIE: "There is a secret group in the Obama-Biden campaign tasked with shutting off any leaks from the record that links Barack Obama to his longtime adviser and mentor Bill Ayers, professor of education at the University of Illinois and unrepentant Weatherman terrorist and fugitive from the 1970s....There is a substantial independent report from a major Democratic source that confirms Diamond's suspicions. The source confirms the unit is led by Bill Ayers himself and likely includes Tom Hayden and other members of 'Progressives for Obama.' Most critically, the Democratic source says this unit has direct access to media adviser David Axelrod of the Obama-Biden campaign."(John Batchelor, Human Events, September 12, 2008)
TRUTH: There is no "secret group." Hayden reports, "I am not part of any effort, personal or organized, trying to protect Obama against any leaks." The notion that Ayers is leading the "unit" is laughable. According to the University of Illinois library, "all papers have been available since August 26" about the school reform group that Ayers and Obama worked on. Diamond, the source cited for the existence of the "unit," declares, "I have no evidence of such a unit." Diamond added, "I told Batchelor that I would not speak to Human Events yet he made up a quote from me and placed it in his article."

Crossposted at ObamaPolitics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top