Ayers and Obama

[oldhardhead]

A cover-up in the making?

Barack Obama, Bill Ayers & Chicago Annenberg Challenge

Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown?
A cover-up in the making?

By Stanley Kurtz


The problem of Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers will not go away. Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn were terrorists for the notorious Weather Underground during the turbulent 1960s, turning fugitive when a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally exploded in a New York townhouse. Prior to that, Ayers and his cohorts succeeded in bombing the Pentagon. Ayers and Dohrn remain unrepentant for their terrorist past. Ayers was pictured in a 2001 article for Chicago magazine, stomping on an American flag, and told the New York Times just before 9/11 that the notion of the United States as a just and fair and decent place “makes me want to puke.” Although Obama actually launched his political career at an event at Ayers’s and Dohrn’s home, Obama has dismissed Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and “not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” For his part, Ayers refuses to discuss his relationship with Obama.

This much we know from the public record, but a large cache of documents housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), is likely to flesh out the story. That document cache contains the internal files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The records in question are extensive, consisting of 132 boxes, containing 947 file folders, a total of about 70 linear feet of material. Not only would these files illuminate the working relationship between Obama and Bill Ayers, they would also provide significant insight into a web of ties linking Obama to various radical organizations, including Obama-approved foundation gifts to political allies. Obama’s leadership style and abilities are also sure to be illuminated by the documents in question.

Cover-Up?
Unfortunately, I don’t yet have access to the documents. The Special Collections section of the Richard J. Daley Library agreed to let me read them, but just before I boarded my flight to Chicago, the top library officials mysteriously intervened to bar access.

"Is this a politically motivated cover-up? Although at this stage it is impossible to know, it is hard to avoid the suspicion. I also have some concerns for the security of the documents, although I have no specific evidence that their security is endangered."

Seems highly suspicious to me that access would suddenly be denied. He's flying to Chi-town, to see the documents, fer gosh sakes. Can they scrub 947 folders of documents “within the next few weeks.”

------------------
Barack Obama's Lost Years
The senator's tenure as a state legislator reveals him to be an old-fashioned, big government, race-conscious liberal.

Barack Obama's Lost Years

------------------
Inside Obama’s Acorn
By their fruits ye shall know them.

Barack Obama & Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn)

What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America.

------------------
Good thing NBC and CNN aren't the only source of news these days.

[Pineygirl]

There are virtually no good reasons to deny access to special collections once that access has been granted.

I'm sure there's something explosive (no pun intended) in there that they don't want anyone to find.

[Pineygirl]

Here's another link:

The ACORN Obama Knows (And You Damned Well Better Learn About) :: Political News and commentaries :: Hyscience

"Acorn" stirred some memories, and I sort of remember them causing trouble in Philly. I'll have to look it up -- it isn't the voter fraud reported in this link, it was something back in the 80s...

[Pineygirl]

I knew they did something visible and disruptive in Center City:

In June 1982 ACORN sponsored "Reagan Ranches" in over 35 cities believing the president's focus to be on military as opposed to social spending. These tent cities were erected for two days and were met with resistance from the National Park Service, which tried repeatedly to evict the tenters. The protesters remained and then marched on the White House and testified before a Congressional committee about what they described as the housing crisis in America. The last Reagan Ranch was held at the Republican Convention in Dallas in 1984.


And this excerpt from the “Wall Street Journal” (boldface is mine)– PRICELESS!!!!
The Wall Street Journal Online - John Fund on the Trail


One of them, Sashanti Bryant of Detroit, Mich., was a community organizer for Acorn. She told me it has a problem paying employees on time and has almost no minorities in its upper echelons. Loretta Barton, until June of this year a lead Acorn organizer from Dayton, Ohio, and another EEOC complainant, told me that "all Acorn wanted from registration drives was results." Ms. Barton alleges that when she and her co-workers asked about forming a union they were slapped down: "We were told if you get a union, you won't have a job." There is some history here: In 2003, the National Labor Relations Board ordered Acorn to rehire and pay restitution to three employees it had illegally fired for trying to organize a union.

In response, Mr. Rathke (ACORN founder and major union organizer and official!!!!!) says he is neutral on internal union-organizing efforts and that "when you're dealing with thousands of employees a year you'll have some who complain." He also said the four complaints lodged with the EEOC had all been dismissed. When told that wasn't the case, he said "there may be some loose ends to be tied up . . . I'm not going to impugn any of the people involved."

Still, Acorn is vulnerable to charges it doesn't practice what it preaches. Its manual for minimum-wage campaigns says it intends "to push for as high a wage as possible." But it doesn't pay those wages. In 2004 Acorn won a $9.50 an hour minimum wage in Santa Fe, N.M., for example, but pays its organizers $25,000 a year for a required 54-hour week--$8.90 an hour. This year Acorn had workers in Missouri sign contracts saying they would be "working up to 80 hours over seven days of work." Mr. Rathke says "We pay as much as we can. If people can get more elsewhere, we wish them well."

In 1995 Acorn unsuccessfully sued California to be exempt from the minimum wage, claiming that "the more that Acorn must pay each individual outreach worker . . . the fewer outreach workers it will be able to hire." Mr. Rathke acknowledges higher wages can cost some jobs but that the raises for other workers are worth it.

PRICELESS!!!

[oldhardhead]

Piney:
Minimum wages... for everyone else! It figures. Acorn is a type of nut... appropriate name? HAHAhaha!

Ahem.

HEADLINE:

University won't open Obama-related records now

(08-19) 12:56 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
The University of Illinois on Tuesday refused to release records relating to Barack Obama's service to a nonprofit group linked to former 1960s radical activist William Ayers.

Might make BO look worse than he already does.

"The donor's only concerns regarding the collection are due to personnel information that could include names, confidential salary information and even Social Security numbers," said the university spokesman.

Right. The files were already "processed".

"Names" and "confidential salary information "? Was that a private, for-profit organization? The money went to public schools, correct? The donation was $50 million from a private foundation. Did BO and Ayers collect compensation from that?

Obama was board chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge for three years starting in 1995 and he remained on the board until the project closed in 2001.

Still smells like a cover-up.

[Arius]

So, I am wondering, why is it that you Republicans seem to have to go to such great lengths to convince yourselves that you are right?

You don't think it amazing that you need to banter about despite the fact that you have already made your choice? Or is it that you need to convince others?

[Pineygirl]

Originally Posted by Arius

So, I am wondering, why is it that you Republicans seem to have to go to such great lengths to convince yourselves that you are right?

You don't think it amazing that you need to banter about despite the fact that you have already made your choice? Or is it that you need to convince others?

I think it's a need to convince others.
You see, we suspect certain things about Obama that we believe could be very dangerous to our nation's safety and economy.
We believe it as much as others believe that he's the savior of the world.
We can't believe that so many people have been taken in by an inexperienced, fine-speechifying, charismatic empty suit. We see the cliff getting closer and closer, and we're terrified that he will take us right over it.

With Hillary, there was a different set of philosophical problems for conservatives. But she has the gravitas, the political experience, and the je-ne-sais-pas that it takes to rule with an iron fist. Hillary knows what she stands for, and therefore, so do we. We may not like it, but we know what it is she would probably do as President.

McCain is a quasi-conservative. We know pretty much what that means. We have seen his legislation. Some of it we like, some we don't like. But we KNOW he believes life begins at conception. We KNOW he doesn't support gay marriage. We KNOW he doesn't like high taxes.

We don't know anything like that about Obama. Sometimes he supports partial birth abortion, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he wants to tax the crap out of us, sometimes he says he wants to tax only the rich. And who is rich? At one point it was $75,000 a year!!!

We KNOW McCain at least has a chance of keeping us safe. Obama wants to negotiate with terrorist dictators with no conditions. Even Joe Biden is against that.

We truly, really believe that Obama is snookering a great number of Americans, and what you have to understand is that we are NOT doing this out of partisanship. It's out of an honest belief that this man is not right for this nation at this time.

[Arius]

I don't ever remember Obama stating that he wanted to "negotiate" with terrorists Piney. Rather, I quite remember he stated that he wanted to open a dialog with the enemy, and that is quite different from negotiating. Simply put, you never will recognize the other side's understandings and point of view unless you talk to them. That does not mean negotiate with or appease, it simply means talk.

And as I have stated before, the enemy of us all is our unwillingness and inability to listen.

Are we so great and awesome that we cannot have a dialog with Iran? Or North Korea? Without dialog only two things can happen, either you war or you appease without talking (similar to what we have done with Russia in Georgia).

McCain is a quasi-conservative. We know pretty much what that means. We have seen his legislation. Some of it we like, some we don't like. But we KNOW he believes life begins at conception. We KNOW he doesn't support gay marriage. We KNOW he doesn't like high taxes.

Then explain something to me about the tax thing: why was he AGAINST (and adamantly so) Bush's tax cuts not once but TWICE?? Per a USA Today article on 12/23/07:

McCain was one of two Republican senators to vote against a $1.35 trillion tax cut that Bush proposed in 2001. McCain also voted against similar plans in 2003, as well as a proposed repeal of the federal estate tax. McCain said they disproportionately benefited the wealthy.

So now, less than 5 years after his last vote on taxes, we are supposed to believe that he now FAVORS tax cuts? I don't buy it one bit.

As far as the other social issues, I don't care about them as I feel strongly that government need stay out of them all. There is no "but" or "except" at the end of that statement either.

We KNOW McCain at least has a chance of keeping us safe.

How do you KNOW this to be true? How can John McCain stop an individual bent on blowing something up? How can McCain stop anything from happening? Hell, the only reason morons like Richard Reid didn't succeed had nothing to do with Bush and his "security", it was passengers with some moxy and an idiot terrorist wanna be who couldn't even untie his shoes right.

Security is an "illusion" and therefore the thought that McCain can keep us any safer than destiny or a good .45 strapped to our waist is an illusion as well. Bush has not stopped one terrorist attack, law enforcement comprised of liberals, conservatives, moderate, independents, republicans and democrats have stopped them. A different mindset in American culture has stopped them (many forget that Clinton made the funding first available under what was called "Domestic Preparedness" funding...few agencies tapped into it).

Oh, and for the record I can say the same for Obama on all points made above.

[Pineygirl]

Originally Posted by Arius

I don't ever remember Obama stating that he wanted to "negotiate" with terrorists Piney. Rather, I quite remember he stated that he wanted to open a dialog with the enemy, and that is quite different from negotiating. Simply put, you never will recognize the other side's understandings and point of view unless you talk to them. That does not mean negotiate with or appease, it simply means talk.

I can see opening a dialogue with Putin. Or even with Chavez or Castro. But where's the foundation for an honest dialogue with someone who denies the holocaust and wants Israel wiped off the map? Iran is run by a madman or madmen. They cannot dialogue because they are completely crazy. Any dialogue would be useless, because they're crazy, and they will do what they want to do anyway.

Don't you understand that Ahmadineajad is working hard to usher in the Muslim version of the Second Coming? The equivalent would be a dictator who wants nuclear war because it would cause Jesus to come sooner.

They're nuts. They're not like other dictators. Putin may be stuck on his agenda, but at least the man is SANE.

Kim Jong Il is nuts, too. He just isn't rational, able to come to any sort of understanding. You have to know when a leader simply opposes you, and when he is plain nuts.

Then explain something to me about the tax thing: why was he AGAINST (and adamantly so) Bush's tax cuts not once but TWICE??

One of his reasons (not the only one) was that spending would not be cut, and in that he was quite right. Reagan's tax cuts would have worked better if spending didn't go up. Same with Bush.

Cut taxes, cut spending and BOOM -- you'd have a phenomenal economy!

How can John McCain stop an individual bent on blowing something up? How can McCain stop anything from happening?

The same way Reagan stopped the Russians. They knew he'd kick ass. They know Bush will kick ass, because he has. They know Obama will NOT kick ass, and like any schoolyard bully, they'll push and push and push until they see what his breaking point is. Even Hillary would kick ass. Her husband made half-hearted kick-ass attempts, which are in some ways worse than either doing nothing or wiping somebody out.

Sadly, Arius, sometimes you have to kick the bully's butt all the way down the block before he stops. You of all people should know this.

Bush has not stopped one terrorist attack, law enforcement comprised of liberals, conservatives, moderate, independents, republicans and democrats have stopped them.

Be honest. We just don't know, do we?
The only facts are that there has not been another attack since 9/11.
Maybe they didn't do it because Bush kicked ass.
Maybe they didn't do it because they're planning some long-range thing.
Maybe they didn't do it because they're waiting for a new President to test.
Who knows WHY?
But we do know WHAT.
And we haven't been attacked.
Did Bush do it? If we're honest, we have to say "we don't know."

[Arius]

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

I can see opening a dialogue with Putin. Or even with Chavez or Castro. But where's the foundation for an honest dialogue with someone who denies the holocaust and wants Israel wiped off the map? Iran is run by a madman or madmen. They cannot dialogue because they are completely crazy. Any dialogue would be useless, because they're crazy, and they will do what they want to do anyway.

Don't you understand that Ahmadineajad is working hard to usher in the Muslim version of the Second Coming? The equivalent would be a dictator who wants nuclear war because it would cause Jesus to come sooner.

They're nuts. They're not like other dictators. Putin may be stuck on his agenda, but at least the man is SANE.

Kim Jong Il is nuts, too. He just isn't rational, able to come to any sort of understanding. You have to know when a leader simply opposes you, and when he is plain nuts.

Of course they are nuts. But understand that most of the world views our President as nuts. Sure, they would not dare suggest an embargo against the world's biggest spender, or a war against the world's greatest power, but at what peril and arrogance do we live in such strength? Sure, Ahmadineajad is crazy with his stance on the Jews, but he does kind of mirror the conservative platform on homosexuality, so in that stance is he now sane? You can still have a dialog with the crazies of the world, as proven by the fact that the world still talks to us (and we went to war over WMD's that didn't exist), but you do so despite their insanity in the hopes of attracting something good about them, and to show the world and the rivals of the insane that we are open minded and willing to listen.

Piney, we often mirror the insanity of Ahamdineajad when we neglect our role in the anger and oppression of the Arab peoples under our helping hand. We pretend it doesn't exist, the way he pretends the holocaust didn't exist. We pretend that we are right in all things, just as he does. We share an insanity in that regard. It won't be Obama/McCain sitting down with those lunes, it will be our representatives sitting down with their representatives. No harm can come of it, none whatsoever.

What I saw Obama offer was a ray of sanity in the cycle of insanity. It is hard for the insane to digest, it is hard for us to admit we need to have a dialog with those who we see as our "enemy". We fear finding common ground with those we fear, or those we wish to fight. Simply put, we all fear the lack of the fight more than we need the peace that comes with it.

Patriotism is born of a common collective and is matured through the use of a common enemy. Face it, our collective has always had the need for a common enemy. We have had 20+ major wars in our short history, not exactly the mark of a peace-loving nation. When we were born, our common enemy was the British, then it became the French, then the Native Americans, then the Mexicans, then the South (or the North), then the Axis powers, then the Communists, and now the Arab "terrorists". Because this strategy of a "common enemy will unite" only works for a short time, we are now experiencing the need for polarization in our own society. Blacks versus whites, citizens versus illegals, rich versus poor, haves versus have nots, drug free versus drug addicts, English versus Spanish, and so on. We need a fight so badly in America that the war we are fighting is NOT ENOUGH for us. We need more fighting, so we take it out on each other.

And until we find a way to peace inside us all, we will never find peace outside us all.

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

One of his reasons (not the only one) was that spending would not be cut, and in that he was quite right. Reagan's tax cuts would have worked better if spending didn't go up. Same with Bush.

Cut taxes, cut spending and BOOM -- you'd have a phenomenal economy!

True, but McCain can't get his own party to agree to cut earmarks and pork, how is he going to convince the democrats that they need to do it? McCain has NEVER been successful in getting any of this type of legislation passed, and he won't be as president. So, he says "cut taxes", but he can't get the spending cuts he needs to make it work. Remember: McCain tried to get earmarks and pork killed in the GOP ruled Congress, and they killed his attempts every time. Remember the line item veto? Killed by REPUBLICANS.

So in that his "cut taxes" rhetoric is just that: rhetoric. He will not be able to do this, and we will be faced with another "read my lips" situation where he has to raise the taxes (although he will have someone to blame) because of freakish spending.

And HE KNOWS THIS, so he can talk all he wants and never have to perform because he WILL HAVE SOMEONE TO BLAME.

Obama has a much better chance of getting tax cuts passed because his party owns the Congress (and should have more of an advantage come November).

Still, voting in Ron Paul sends a clear message to our Congress, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

The same way Reagan stopped the Russians. They knew he'd kick ass. They know Bush will kick ass, because he has. They know Obama will NOT kick ass, and like any schoolyard bully, they'll push and push and push until they see what his breaking point is. Even Hillary would kick ass. Her husband made half-hearted kick-ass attempts, which are in some ways worse than either doing nothing or wiping somebody out.

Sadly, Arius, sometimes you have to kick the bully's butt all the way down the block before he stops. You of all people should know this.

Piney, allow me to say that you show a complete and utter misunderstanding of the enemy we fight. They have stated that they "value death as much as Americans value life" and have proved it many, many times. Do you think they fear an ass whooping? The term "Mutually Assured Destruction" doesn't work with people who WANT TO DIE. And when you blow yourself up, you don't fear nukes either, and Americans are STILL dead.

This statement is very worth repeating:

Sadly, Arius, sometimes you have to kick the bully's butt all the way down the block before he stops. You of all people should know this.

Do you think that bin Laden is a "bully"????????? Who in this world, if you sit an honestly answer, is the world's bully??? Does a bully walk up the the strongest and best fighter on the block and pick a fight? However, when the bully least expects it, he gets a bat upside his head from the little guy. 9/11 was the bully's bat upside the head, and we AREN'T the little guy.

So, knowing this is honestly and truly the correct assessment, do you still feel that sometimes the bully needs his butt kicked "all the way down the block before he stops"?? If you do then you are, in fact, thinking like bin Laden and those who think America is more dangerous than any terrorist in the world. And you don't need to look far to find those who think that way.

Please, before you react, understand that this in not "un-American". This dialog is necessary to make us greater than we are. Look at every nation that has silenced dissidents and tell me how many still exist.