Obama and the 'Tangential' Bill Ayers

Ayers: Part of a Pattern
Another Piece of the "Who's Obama?" Puzzle
The 'tangential' Bill Ayers




Barack Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, is not a topic for polite MSM or liberal conversation.

We're neither liberal or polite.

LBG discussed the issue yesterday [Obama’s Ties to 1970’s Domestic Terrorist Bill Ayers: Disassociation and Little Condemnation]. Today, we'll discuss it again.

No San Francisco cocktail party invites for us.

Democrats insist that any discussion of Obama and Bill Ayers is a "smear".

Is it?

A "smear" is defined as a "vilifying or slanderous remark". While Obama's friendship with Ayers is certainly "injurious to [his] reputation--especially now that Obama's running for president--there's absolutely nothing slanderous about it.

Generally, the truth is an absolute defense in any suit for slander or libel, and the truth is: the Barack Obama-Bill Ayers association goes back years.

The following observations, from comments at Free Republic helps put that association in perspective.

Q: What does Obama and Osama have in common?
A: They BOTH have friends who bombed the Pentagon.

This from stockstrader at Free Republic:

I wish someone would ask [Obama] just once: "Then tell me, would it be ok for a child who was eight years old on 9/11--to then have a friendship with Osama bin Laden later in life as an adult"?

We might add "running for president in 2020 or beyond" to the description of that eight-year-old child.

Mark Steyn's comment on the Obama-Ayers connection:

"Well, why shouldn't they vote on "character"? Barack Obama has no accomplishments, no legislative record, no nuthin'. So if you don't want to vote on character (ie, his condescension to crackers too boorish to understand how sophisticatedly nuanced it is to have a terrorist pal and a racist pastor), what else is left?"

[h/t: What's the Rumpus?]



Obama launched his political career from Bill Ayers' house. Ayers' has had fund-raisers for the Democrat presidential candidate. Obama chaired the foundation that Ayers wrote the grant for. Obama and Ayers served on the same boards.

This is not, as Obama told Bill O'Reilly this week, a "tangential" acquaintance. This is not "one of the thousands of people that I know".

That Obama didn't see anything wrong with Ayers until it became a campaign issue reveals something about Obama: his actions and past associations somehow seem to center around "change": as in, 'the USA is not a good place' and needs to be changed.

Ayers tried bombing his way to change--regardless of what the voters and the rest of the community had decided.

To discuss Obama's relationship with Ayers isn't to claim that Obama wants to blow things up (Obama's "Barack the bomb-thrower" remark). But it may help reveal the mindset of a man who wants to become president--before he became nationally-known.

That his campaign continues to downplay this--disingenuously, we think--is evidence that Obama's handlers feel this is a damaging issue. As LBG stated:

barrackobama.com's FACT CHECK section on Ayers cites various MSM sources which claim the Ayers-Obama connection is “phony”, ‘tennous”, and a “stretch”.


DBKP FACT:

Barack Obama held his first fundraiser at Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine’s home in 1995.

“Obama claims Ayers was just a “guy in the neighborhood,” but clearly he was more than that. Obama misrepresents his relationship with the man in whose home his first fundraiser was held.”
–Investors Business Daily

Here's how the Chicago Sun-Times, in a bit of WTF-ery, puts it:

Ayers is nothing more than an aging lefty with a foolish past who is doing good. And while, yes, Obama is friendly with Ayers, it appears to be only in the way of two community activists whose circles overlap. Obama's middle name is Hussein. That doesn't make him an Islamic terrorist. He stopped wearing a flag pin. That doesn't make him unpatriotic. And he's friendly with UIC Professor William Ayers. That doesn't make him a bomb thrower.

Individually, those Obama actions may not raise eyebrows at the Sun-Times; collectively, might they seem to suggest, to the uninterested observer, an Obama pattern?

In the O'Reilly interview, Obama was allowed to skate away from the questions on Ayers by saying that Ayers was "tangential": Bill O'Reilly didn't hone in on the follow-up. That's understandable: O'Reilly would like to land another rating-boosting Obama appearance on his show at some point in the future.

The Obama campaign will not, just as understandably, bring up the issue of Ayers unless pressed. The Mainstream Media will not, just as understandably, press the issue with a candidate that 90% of their reporters will likely vote for in 2008.

Which, once more, leaves it up to the blogosphere to press the issue.

We intend on doing that, along with others. To those on the right, there's a lot more to discuss about Obama and Ayers and we'll get around to that. To those on the left, "sticks and stones..."

As for the "smear" talk?

We're not asking about Obama's kids or whether he's their father: we're asking about a man from whose house Barack Obama announced his Illinois Senate bid:

The 'tangential' Bill Ayers.


by Mondoreb
images; dbkp file

Obama Campaign Reaction: Corsi Book No Smear

Obama: Smoke and Smears



Is this any way to run for President of The United States of America?

The Obama campaign has been employing an unusual strategy for the last two months or so. Whenever Obam is criticized by anyone, the campaign regurgitates a press release asking McCain to keep to issues, to please not go back on his word to run an honest, positive campaign, and oh, by the way, please destroy, disavow and discredit the person or entity who dared criticize the Messiah.

This laughable strategy works because it has the full and complicit backing of the Mainstream Media and--on 2 or 3 occasions--McCain, who panicked instead if standing up like a man and ridiculing the practice. The ultimate example of this may have occurred in the last few days.



Recently, an author by the name of Jerome Corsi released a book that shot to the top of the Best Seller list. The book, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, is highly critical of Obama. So naturally, instead of the candidate dealing with the contents, the DNC Rapid Response Team (yep, we are not kidding, )fired off a press realease. As reported by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs,
(The Corsi Letter), the email stated,

From: DNC Rapid Response Team
Subject: Fight Swift Boating

Friend —

Yesterday, you learned about the right-wing’s latest attack: extremist Jerome Corsi and his book of the same old smears and lies.

This morning, when asked about the book, all John McCain could say about Corsi’s outrageously false attacks was, “Gotta keep your sense of humor.” Despite pledging to run a respectful campaign, McCain is just standing by while Corsi and his publisher, former Dick Cheney aide Mary Matalin, poison this presidential race.

Now we here at DBKP were a bit taken aback, by that statement. It reeks of innuendo and prevarication; it is unclear who asked the question or why. The implication is that a reporter asked it, and indeed, the Wall Street Journal later reported that to be the case. If so the reporter is a dolt who should be fired for incompetence or for planting a question.

Because Corsi is not a Republican.

And even if McCain were the head of the GOP--which he is not--exactly what could he do?

Jerome Corsi is a member of the Constitution Party. In fact, Corsi intensely dislikes Bush and Cheney and has said so on numerous occasions and in no uncertain terms--as any political reporter should know. Corsi even competed for the nomination of President of the Constitution Party. But this Obama lie is all over the media.

As for McCain and Corsi, Corsi accused John McCain for being an Islamic frontman for Hezbohhah because of his support of Kosovo independence.No love lost there. The head of The Constitution is a fellow named Chuck Baldwin (http://www.baldwin08.com/).

Maybe Obama can take it up with him.

As for McCain's reaction, it is entirely appropriate: the "cry-baby-make-it-stop" campaign style of Obama has become obnoxious. Not only should McCain laugh at this incredible gaffe and attempted smear, so should the whole country.



As for Obama, why don't you put away the teleprompter, stop hiding behind the curtain, and answer Mr Corsi's questions. Better still, challenge him to a debate.

Then we can all laugh.

by pat
image: RidesAPaleHorse

Limbaugh, Craig & The Left:Fighting the "Phony" MediaWars on the Liberal's Terms

by Mondoreb

"Occupy such [high] terrain first and wait for the enemy to come."

In The Art of War, Sun Tzu, the famed Chinese general, had many things to say about fighting on enemy terrain. Conservatives in general would do well to pay heed to the good general's advice.

Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, with the professed aim of wiping the only democratic country in the Middle East off the face of the earth. The number of would-be assassins stopped with pipe bombs, instructions for making bombs, or issuing 'how-to' videos showing the construction of bombs, makes one think he is in Gaza instead of Miami.

September provided an almost unbroken parade of encouraging news concerning the fortunes of war in Iraq. So let's take a look at the latest non-stories the media and the Left wanted to talk about.

Rush Limbaugh and "phony" Soldiers. Take one popular conservative talk show host. Add a Hillary Clinton-spawned PR firm masquerading as a 'media watchdog', a dash of Rush saying the phrase "phony" and a 55-gallon drum of 'outraged Liberal' soundbites from the usual suspects. Stir. And stir. And stir.

Limbaugh played transcripts of the on-air conversation in question refuting the Liberal Big Lie, but let it be said: there is no live tape the Left can't spin into an outrageous Kodak Moment. Hopefully Limbaugh, ever the entrepreneur, will look at all this as a case of "I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right."

The Larry Craig Show. It's hard to deny that Craig, the hapless Senate wide-stanced bathroom foot-tapper, was great comic relief. The endless "Craig Watch" clocks, faux-outrage pieces and non-stop coverage of "Will-he-resign-won't-he?", was understandable on the Left. But the Conservative ink and pixels--in this case Michelle Malkin--devoted to this sad simpering man were baffling. If he were a Democrat, there'd be a non-binding resolution already on the Senate floor praising the Idaho Stall Stalker for his "courage" and condemning the "hypocrisy" of any Republicans even thinking to raise an issue.

There were other examples, all equally inane, the Bill O'Reilly "racist restauranteur" remark from Hillary Matters the most glaring. Liberal Democrats know they've kept bad cards: on any issue important to the U.S. and American interests, they've insisted on playing a losing hand. It's not hard to believe they'd resort to the top two options in their limited play book of ideas: 'change the subject' and 'don't answer opponents, smear them'.

What's puzzling is the conservative position of spending time answering this pettifoggery. Hammer on ideas. Point out the ridiculousness of losing Liberal Leftcant. Remember Sun Tzu. Set up camp on high ground. It's a winner.




Back to Front Page