It’s Only an Unfair Attack if it’s Not True, Otherwise, it’s Just Information (A.K.A. Ayers 2.0)

Posted on August 27, 2008. Filed under: Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters |

As discussed on a previous post, the Obama campaign has tried to set the rules from the beginning to classify any statement as an attack if it says anything other than, “Gee, Obama sure would be a great president.” They are currently applying their strategy to an ad Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons’ funded that highlights Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, admitted domestic terrorist. As in the Democrat primary elections to combat ads from Hillary’s and John Edward’s campaigns, Obama’s general counsel Bob Bauer is threatening legal action against anyone involved with the ads from the creator to the stations that air them. He has even sent a letter to the Justice Department imploring them to step in and stop the ads. Luckily, the Justice Department hasn’t responded. Simmons has committed the ultimate sin against Obama; he is questioning an issue that the Obama campaign has said requires no more discussion because they already laid the issue to rest. Even though, as written in a previous Post on August 22 (One Example of Obama’s Disturbing Associations), there are still many questions left unanswered as to why Obama associated with the domestic terrorist for so long.

Apparently, Simmons has hit a nerve with the Obama camp. They have been very guarded about Obama’s past relationship to Ayers. In fact, as Michael Barone mentioned in his August 22 column for US News and World Report’s website, the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois – Chicago, refuses to release the records of the Chicago Aunnenberg Challenge which would help to explain just how close Obama and Ayers were throughout the years they worked together. It is hard to believe that the records would only vindicate Obama, because if they did, the Obama camp would be racing to get them made public. The campaign will probably say that they are not in control of the library’s decision and they wish the records would be released but, gosh darnet, the university just won’t do it. There is plenty of speculation as to what is keeping the library so intent on not disclosing the records.

Obama would be right on one campaign promise; he wouldn’t be bringing the same old Washington D.C. politics with him. Even worse though, Obama would be bringing to the White House Chicago politics as usual. For anyone not even slightly familiar with Chicago politics, the best comparison might be a mix of the Sopranos with Days of Our Lives. Barone gives a good introduction to the incestuous political system in the nation’s third-largest city. (Read Michael Barone’s column here: To clarify, the Sopranos reference is not due to organized crime, even though Chicago has had quite a history with that subject. Instead, it is a reference to the idea Barone explains as voters being finicky of outsiders that aren’t related to or recommended by the established hierarchy of the city. Essentially, Obama’s work in Chicago and the endorsements and friendly gestures he had made in the past for the Daley mayoral machine and its friends, might really help explain why the records are locked up and kept out of site at a university library carrying the Daley family name.

Obama supporters are quick to claim Obama is being “swift-boated” because Dr. Jerome Corsi who wrote the Obama Nation also authored Unfit for Command, the book where John Kerry’s subordinates from Vietnam, calling themselves Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, voiced their objections to Kerry’s candidacy from his shortcomings as a commanding officer.  Simmons was also one of the key financial backers for running the anti-Kerry ads. The same people who are now crying that Corsi and Simmons are making unfair attacks that have no relevance to the campaign cried the same tune in 2004 for John Kerry. However, the claims were as relevant with Kerry as they are now to Obama. As the book, Unfit for Command explained, John Kerry had based almost every campaign he had ever run on his status as a war hero. Upon accepting the Democratic nominee, Kerry told the crowd, “Reporting for duty,” and then gave a salute. This war hero persona was central to almost all of Kerry’s ads and many of his speeches. While no one should ever randomly attack any veteran’s service, that rule goes out the window when the veteran explicitly claims their military record sets them above their opponent. At this point, it becomes fair game to investigate and criticize that record. Kerry could have hushed all criticisms that he had exaggerated his injuries in order to receive multiple Purple Hearts. All he had to do was release his full military medical records. Both President Bush and Kerry had been asked to release their military records so it wasn’t just an unfair request of Kerry. As many remember, Dan Rather of CBS News actually used damning records he knew were forgeries on the conditions surrounding Bush’s discharge. Kerry was never really pressed by the main stream media and he always claimed he was working to release his records; the American voters are still waiting for them today.

In the case of Obama and William Ayers, the ads showing voters the relationship Obama has with Ayers is extremely relevant. The US is currently fighting a war on terror. Many, especially Obama supporters, like to downplay the War on Terror but America is in a war with terrorists. The country and its servicemen came under attack through both of President Clinton’s terms in office and pinnacled with the September 11, 2001 attacks that killed thousands of Americans on US soil. As a country, Americans will be putting much trust in the president’s leadership choices, appointees, action plans, and perceived direction of the country while continuing to keep terrorists at bay. With this in mind, it is completely unacceptable for a presidential candidate to have such a long relationship with a confessed, unrepentant domestic terrorist. This is also a very interesting character association when viewed with those Obama has written in his books as helping shape his views of the American experience.

Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn are not the only adamantly anti-American associates that Obama writes about in his books. Most voters are probably at least familiar with Obama’s 20-year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ that practices black liberation theology. The church’s retired minister, Jeremiah Wright, regularly made outrageous anti-American claims from the pulpit such as the HIV virus was created by the US government to wipe out the black race. The sermons have continued along the same lines since Wright’s departure. As discussed in The Anti-Obamassiah Refuge on August 22, this church married Barack and Michelle Obama and baptized their children. Then there is the extremist priest Father Pfleger who once threatened to “snuff out” a Chicago area gun shop owner, Obama credits Fr. Pfleger of helping him find, “his moral compass.”

Barack also writes in Dreams from My Father, about an older black poet he knew through his grandfather, while growing up in Hawaii. He credits this poet with shaping his racial awareness and explaining to him the role race plays in American society. The poet he writes about is known communist Frank Marshall Davis. One of Davis’ lessons came when Obama turned to Davis after his grandmother came home worried about an aggressive panhandler, who was black that had approached her on her way home from work. Obama writes that he sought Davis’ advice after hearing his grandmother’s concerns. Davis had these words for Obama, “She understands that black people have a reason to hate. That’s just how it is.” It is hard to say whether Obama remembers this lesson when speaking about unifying the country.  These are all past associations that Obama wrote about in his books as having helped to shape his world view. Through his books, Obama shows how his life was dramatically shaped by many individuals with a very jaded outlook of the United States. His books also show how he seemed to seek out individuals with these types of ideas.

This is where the Ayers relationship still deserves to be in the forefront of issues for voters to consider. While it is true that even the most patriotic do not always support the government’s actions, at the end of the day, it is crucial to have a president that believes in America and its place in the world. The point cannot be stressed enough that the President of the United States will put many lives both in and out of America’s borders in the hands of trusted cabinet positions and advisors that are employed solely at the president’s discretion. The American People deserve to have an idea of the pool out of which the president will make his appointments. This can only really be studied by looking at past appointments and the company the candidate keeps. With Obama’s short career history, voters can only really analyze his past associations. Obama’s persistent refusal to answer the Ayers question should very well draw the voters’ speculation. Not enough attention can be drawn to this issue that is why it is being revisited again this week on the Anti-Obamassiah Refuge.

Obama must answer why he associated so long with Ayers and Dohrn and why his campaign accepted the very small donation of $200 from the admitted terrorist. The donation is very small but definitely not insignificant. No matter what the size of the donation is, the Obama campaign accepted donations from an admitted terrorist who had many targets that al Qaeda would hit forty years later. The fact that Ayers personally sought out Obama to chair his new foundation definitely shows that Ayers saw something he liked in Obama. The fact that Obama took the position and held it for eight years shows Obama must have seen something he appreciated in Ayers. By the Obama campaign now closing ranks, not publically calling for the University of Illinois to release the Chicago Annenberg Challenge’s records, asking the Justice Department to intervene, and having his campaign’s legal counsel threaten lawsuits against everyone involved with Simmons’ ad does not give the voters confidence that Obama is being forthcoming about the relationship. Attempting to squash core political speech, supported by the First Amendment, is not a way to prove your innocence.

Obama’s response to the Simmons ad claims John McCain is ignoring present problems facing the country to concentrate on events that happened forty years ago. He is wrong. This is not about events that happened forty years ago. This is about events that could very well happen after January 2009 if Obama is inaugurated. Who would President Obama turn to for advice in times of crisis? Would we want him getting advice from those who agree with our enemies? Perhaps his running mate, Joe Biden, was correct during the Democrat Primaries when he said, Barack Obama isn’t prepared to be President of the United States.





Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


    Is this really a new type of politician? Or is the Obama machine just using politics as usual in their campaign?


    Subscribe Via RSS

    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Add your feed to Newsburst from CNET
    • Subscribe in Google Reader
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • The latest comments to all posts in RSS


Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: