First, some background. Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, helped found the domestic terrorist group Weather Underground back in the 1960s. They were responsible for about 20 bombings around the country, including a New York City police station and the Pentagon. The only deaths in the bombings were three terrorists, who were killed when they botched a bomb and blew themselves up. Ayers and Dohrn were arrested, but got off on a technicality. Ever since, they've been quite open about hating America, and regret only that they weren't able to do more to harm it. In 2001, Ayers appeared on the cover of Chicago Magazine standing on an American flag for an article titled, 'No Regrets'. The issue came out on 9/11, along with his statement that the notion of America being a good and decent place making him want to puke. Here are some of his more choice statements:
"Everything was absolutely ideal. ... The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."
Characterizing Weatherman as "an American Red Army," Ayers summed up the organization's ideology as follows: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents."
The guy is a thoroughly dispicable man. Naturally, it would behoove voters to understand the nature of the relationship between this terrorist and the Democrat nominee for President. Is Ayers just a guy in his neighborhood, like Obama says, or is there more to it?
To start with, Obama launched his career in public service with a fundraiser at Ayers' house. He served on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with Ayers (which is actually, as Hugh Hewitt points out, his only example of executive experience). These facts alone are very suspicious of being more than 'just a guy in his neighborhood', but in an attempt to plumb the depths of this relationship, Stanley Kurtz filed a request for thousands of pages of documents from the University of Illinois at Chicago about the Annenberg Challenge, and opened up a firestorm of response.
Kurtz was initially granted access to those documents, but when he arrived to begin his research, he was barred. He jumped through numerous hoops to try to gain access, and it was clear that they were hiding something (read the links below for all the details).
There are some very strong indicators that both Ayers and Obama are connected to the mysterious 'donor' of these public records, but the fact is that someone is trying to keep the records from going public. There are numerous opinions indicating that the library's actions are illegal or at least severely unethical. If the unnamed donor continues to keep the documents secret for much longer, there is a chance of losing important information that the public needs to know. If nothing else, the public should know why there is so much secrecy around Obama's relationship with Ayers; if Obama's assertion of their relationship is true, why isn't he calling for the records to be made public? The MSM, of course, has remained almost completely silent on the matter, turning a blind eye to what could sink the Obamessiah's ship.
Not everyone has, however. An organization called American Issues Project released a TV ad about the ties between Ayers and Obama, which unleashed a vicious reaction from the Obama campaign.
Here's the ad:
The only thing that in the ad that isn't undeniably a fact is the assertion that the two are friends. Otherwise, it was completely accurate, and that's why it is so devastating. That's why the Obama campaign is fighting it.
And boy, are they fighting it! Pay attention, because this is where it gets really interesting...
First, they attacked the TV stations playing the ad, demanding the ad be pulled in a clear violation of free speech. When that failed, Obama demanded the Department of Justice prosecute those responsible for the ad! Apparently, Obama feels that the Left should have its own private benefactors (like George Soros), but won't stand for the same on the Right. In response, AIP sent a message to the DOJ with the following (excerpts):
"Having failed in its attempts to get our legal, factual and fully-supported ad off the air, Barack Obama's campaign now wants to put our donors in prison for exercising their right to free speech," said Ed Martin, American Issues Project's president. "These over-the-top bullying tactics are reminiscent of the kind of censorship one would see in a Stalinist dictatorship, with the only difference being that those guys generally had to wait until they were in power to throw people who disagreed with them into jail."
In addition to two letters sent to the Department of Justice asking the government to investigate American Issues Project, its officers, board of directors, and donors, the Obama campaign has been contacting stations running American Issues Project's ad in an unsuccessful attempt to compel them to pull the spot. With no success on either front, the campaign has also begun running its own ad in response. Notably, this ad fails to dispute a single fact in the American Issues Project's initial ad.
The Obama campaign continued to work on the DOJ while also beginning a campaign of intimidating donors to conservative causes. So, the AIP sent another letter, upping the ante even further (excerpts):As stated in my letter sent in response to the Obama campaign's first letter, AIP has not violated the law, is not violating the law and is taking every possible precaution to assure that it does not violate the law in the future.
The Obama campaign dislikes the content of AIP's advertising – but is unable to contradict the facts contained in the ad. That is precisely why the ad is presently being broadcast by numerous television stations. It is accurate, documented, and truthful.
The Obama Campaign's request gives rise to a significant legal and constitutional question: that is, whether the Department of Justice would seriously undertake the prosecution of a citizen under pressure from a prominent government official / political candidate, relying on information contained in truthful and accurate government filing, disclosed in accordance with federal law. There are serious Fifth Amendment self-incrimination issues involved in a situation whereby a criminal prosecution could be ordered at will by political pressure on your Department based solely on a timely and accurate federal government disclosure.
AIP has sought and received the voluntary after-tax contributions of donor(s) to support its policy objectives, which happen to differ from those of the Obama Campaign. Rather than addressing the facts contained in the AIP advertisement, it has instead set about to "deal" with AIP through your Department.
An organization calling itself "Accountable America" announced two weeks ago its intent to obtain publicly filed disclosures to attempt to coerce donors to conservative causes to stop making contributions and essentially threatening potential donors into not making contributions to conservative groups. Like the Obama Campaign, this group of operatives is using information obtained from legally mandated public disclosures to identify and target for their attack donors to conservative causes.
Of course, should the Department decide to yield to the pressure from the Obama Campaign and undertake its requested 'investigations' of donors to politically related conservative causes, the Department would necessarily be required to do so in an even-handed, non partisan and non-ideological approach. In that regard, the Department would be required to review all donors to all causes and political / policy organizations, whose contributions exceed $5,000 per calendar year to any such causes, the vast majority of which are donors to liberal causes, not conservative ones.
Based on calculations from the Center for Responsive Politics (www.crp.org ) the following are leftwing donors whose substantial contributions to political causes in the last three election cycles have consistently landed each of them on the top donors list and surely each of these donors warrant the Department's review, scrutiny and prosecution, if the Obama Campaign standard is to be applied evenly:
George Soros:
2004: $23,450,000
2006: $ 3,542,500
2008 (to date) $ 4,650,000
Steven Bing:
2004: $13,852,031
2008 (to date) $ 4,850,000
Peter Lewis:
2004: $22,997,220
2006: $ 1, 624,375
2008 (to date) $ 850,000
Herb and Marion Sandler:
2004: $13, 008, 459
Linda Pritzker:
2004: $3,300,000
2006: $2,101,000
John Hunting:
2006: $1,647,000
2008 (to date) $1,243,000
Alida Messinger
2004: $ 3,580,200
2006: $ 1,042,000
2008 (to date) $ 883,000
Pat Stryker:
2006: $ 1,331,293
2008 (to date): $ 300,000
Jon Stryker:
2006: $ 1,271,313
2008: $ 604,054
The list is quite lengthy and this is but a partial list of those the Department would be obligated to pursue if it bows to the demands of the Obama Campaign to undertake investigations of wealthy donors making large contributions to political causes. The Obama Campaign should be aware that most of the donors on the list are individuals who consistently support left-wing, liberal and Democratic causes. And most of the donors listed above have made public statements regarding their intent to use their wealth to impact the outcome of federal elections should the Department need further evidence of their activities.
WHOA!!! Talk about throwing down the gauntlet! So, here's what's happening. The AIP has done nothing illegal; it has simply presented a dissenting view from Obama. In response, Obama is attempting to use the DOJ to prosecute them. The AIP, then, pointed out that if the DOJ decides to get involved in this clear violation of free speech, it must do so in an even fashion, which means it would have to prosecute all of the Democrats' rich benefactors, as well.
This appears to have kicked Obama's protests to the curb, at least temporarily, since they put out an ad of their own, lamely asserting that Obama was just a child when Ayers was perpetrating his bombings, and accusing McCain of trying to make hay of the issue. This is factually incorrect, of course, and still does nothing to actually counter the FACTS of the AIP ad.
Stanley Kurtz, in an effort to publicize the mystery and thuggery going on around the issue, went onto a Chicago radio station and was blistered by Obama supporters in an attempt to shut him up. Listen here.
This story is ongoing, and will continue to heat up as we draw closer to the general election. If nothing else, the fact that Obama appears desperate to make this go away should raise some serious concerns. The fact that they are actually attempting to SILENCE dissent should be a huge, blinking, neon sign of danger for an Obama presidency: free speech will no longer be tolerated.
Keep your eyes on this one.
There's my two cents.
Sources: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/08/021298.php http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTgwZTVmN2QyNzk2MmUxMzA5OTg0ODZlM2Y2OGI0NDM=&w=MA== http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDNhZjY5NzEwNTRiNDE3YjQxZTMyOTU0NjcwMjhlMGM http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODhhOTg2YTE3MDBhODJjNmI4YmY5NDY5MWRmYTc5Y2M= http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_lost_annenberg_years_co.html http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/66c4e36c-7371-4b70-b995-e24e41d5ae19 http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/08/annenberg-gate-its-not-crime-its-cover.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/bill_baracks_excellent_adventu.html http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODk2ZTRmZDIwNWEzOWE2MDNhMTQ0ZWYwYmRiNWZmNDM= http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/26/gloves-off-now-obama-calls-for-prosecuting-gop-donor/ http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/27/obamas-ayers-problem-deepens/ http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/27/document-drop-turning-the-tables-again-on-obamas-speech-squelching-thugs/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121987452084877651.html?mod=opinion_journal_political_diary http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/28/next-the-obama-thugs-came-for-stanley-kurtz/
http://wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44075&Itemid=467
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89m0pC_bpY
No comments:
Post a Comment