The Discerning Texan

All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Dispensing with the whole "When did Obama know about Ayers" meme

Lots of good material from The Corner today. As usual.

OK, let's dispense with the pretense: of course Obama is lying about when he and Ayers met (more background here). No person--even an unrepentant 60's Marxist terrorist--entrusts more than $50 million of "trust money" to someone he does not know and/or agree with. If Ayers does not see Obama as a "Comrade in the cause" Obama does not get that job. Period.

Not to mention Ayers' hosting a campaign event at his house for Obama. Clearly this was not just someone who Barack ran into in the 'hood. And for Obama to claim he did not know Ayers' history is as stupefying as his claim that he sat in Trinity Church for 20 years and did not have a clue about what the good Rev. Wright was about--anti-Seimitism and all...

But--as Victor Davis Hanson so artfully points out--it should not even matter when they first met (emphasis mine):
"He [Obama] said they have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005" (New York Times, 10/3)

Why in the world was Barack Obama still communicating on the phone or via email with Bill Ayers up until 2005 — when in 2001 Ayers gave widely publicized interviews claiming he had no regrets about the bombing, indeed regretted that he had not done enough, and did not necessarily have any remorse either about his Weathermen career?

Ponder that: the possible next President of the United States, well after 9/11 and in the climate of hourly worry over terrorism here at home, was still friendly and communicating with an associate that had to abandon his book tour due to popular outcry, and was widely quoted as absolutely unrepentant about his terrorism. That is a damning indictment of his judgement — among other things — and it is no "smear" to raise the issue.

Indeed, there is a disturbing pattern here. Obama's once-close radical Chicago associates are never jettisoned out of principle, but only at the 11th-hour when they became impediments to Obama's political career. Thus Wright is defended throughout his racist rantings, until he makes the unfortunate decision of bringing that hatred to DC's elite nexus at the National Press Club — and only then is immediately dropped, as Obama resigns from Trinity Church. Ditto Ayers. What made Obama cease communciations with Ayers was not the latter's radicalism (indeed Obama facilitated it by serving with Ayers to dispense millions to questionable organizations), nor even Ayers' boasts in 2001 of having no regrets about trying to blow up government buildings. Instead, 2005 coincides with Obama's ascension to the Senate and the plan to begin running for the Presidency — and thus Ayers, like Wright later, became expendable. Ditto Rezko, Pfleger et al.
Meanwhile, Stanley Kurtz illuminates the Obama's cover-up with the perpetually-corrupt ACORN (read the whole thing):

Barack Obama is now apparently denying his ties with Acorn. Here’s what he’s posted on the subject at his "Fight the Smears" website. These claims are contradicted by several sources, a number of which I linked to in my piece, "Inside Obama’s Acorn." In that piece, you’ll find a link to a Los Angeles Times piece in which Chicago Acorn leader Madeline Talbott is described as so impressed with Obama that "she invited him to help train her staff." You’ll also see a link to a statement by Obama himself, made in pursuit of Acorn’s endorsement. Obama says: "I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work." In my piece, "No Liberation," you’ll find a link to a 1995 profile of Obama which says: "Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side." My articles provide background, but the quotes and links I’ve presented here, and in the past, pretty conclusively contradict Obama’s current claims at "Fight the Smears."

Perhaps the strongest evidence against Obama’s attempt to deny his ties to Acorn comes in an article by Toni Foulkes, a Chicago Acorn leader, and a member of Acorn’s National Association Board, in the journal Social Policy. That article appears on pages 49-52 of the combined Winter 2003-Spring 2004 issue, Vol. 34, No. 2, Vol. 34, No. 3. I provide a link to a pay-for-access page to that article in my "Inside Obama’s Acorn" piece. As I’ve just been informed by a reader, however, the journal Social Policy appears to have pulled the link to that article, rendering it inaccessible, even by purchase. You can find the apparently pulled link here.

A link to a second article also appears to have been pulled here. I was previously unaware of this second article, "Towards a Chicago School of Youth Organizing," by Alyson Parham and Jeff Pinzino. I would strongly suggest that people try to find this article in hard copy at a library. (What is it about Obama and libraries?)

Peter Kirsanow makes the case for why McCain must hit Obama hard about the Ayers association--and hard:
Andy McCarthy's right that it's imperative to attack the premise that Obama's a plausible president. Obama consorted with a terrorist who brags about planting bombs and whose organization planted hundreds of bombs. Some were meant to kill cops. Some were meant to kill soldiers. Some were meant to kill civilians.

Let's put this quite simply: This is an abomination. This alone disqualifies Obama from being president. Even if he can heal the planet. Even if the Dow tanks to 5000. Even if he puts a unicorn in every garage. A majority of Americans will not vote for a candidate who they know has had a working relationship with a terrorist — foreign or domestic. But they must know it.

Americans haven't suddenly become so tolerant of terrorism — and those who are tolerant of terrorists — that we'll vote for a smooth, glib, empty suit because we hope that somehow he'll work some form of alchemy on a scary economy.

This is not rocket science. The facts must be presented. Clearly, concisely, repeatedly. They haven't been.

I'll leave it to the pros to figure out how to make this register given the economy. But I think Jim Geraghty's idea of having an event at Ft. Dix should at least start the discussion.
Faster, please.
DiscerningTexan, 10/08/2008 10:22:00 PM |