Wednesday, October 29, 2008
OBAMA: THE ILLEGAL ALIEN
I have become 100% convinced, to a moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Barack Obama is not only not a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution to be president, but that he was not even born in the USA, not born in Hawaii, probably in Kenya, never naturalized. If he is elected, he will be the UnConstitutional President from the moment he takes the oath of office, the first president who is not a citizen of the United States.
Why I am so sure?
I was not convinced by the lawsuits filed by Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Jerome Corsi, and others seeking disclosure of Obama's birth certificate. I was not convinced by the books and articles that now abound contesting Obama's origins. I was convinced by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, asking the governor of Hawaii to seal Obama's birth certificate so it could not be seen, by anyone, and by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, sealing his records at Columbia University and Harvard Law. Barack Obama is hiding himself from America. And he wants to be POTUS, and Commander-in-Chief.
In the litigation business, one quickly learns that if somebody has a document that will be good for them, they can't wait to give it to you. And if somebody has a document that will hurt them, they'll be tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago to keep you from getting it.
Obama is tap dancing.
If I were Obama's lawyers, and if there was a good, authentic, birth certificate that proved Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii, I would tell him to instruct the Hawaiian Department of Health to provide a certified copy to every journalist who asked about it, to the Courts and plaintiffs in all the lawsuits, and to make the original available for inspection by any expert forensic document examiner any litigant or news agency engaged to examine the birth certificate for authenticity.
I would tell him to come clean, and end the speculation. And I would tell him that the speculation could cost him the election.
But that's not what Obama's lawyers are doing, they're filling motions for summary judgment, not on the merits of the case, but on "technicalities," at least in the Berg case, arguing that Citizens, voters, do not have standing to enforce the United States Constitution, and at least one judge, Richard Barclay Surrick, has agreed.
But what Obama and his lawyers and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) are not doing is being open and honest with America. They're tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago. So we are forced to this conclusion as a matter of logical necessity:
1. If Barack Obama could produce a good birth certificate that would verify his status as a "natural born citizen," he would. Failing to do so can only hurt him. Failing to do so can cost him the election.
2. He hasn't, and is doing all possible not to.
3. Therefore, we can only conclude that he can't, and that his birth certificate, if it exists at all, is either altered, forged, or shows him born outside the U.S. We have to conclude that producing his birth certificate, if he can, will prove he is not eligible to be president, not a natural born citizen, or not a citizen at all. We can only conclude that Obama and his laywers know that producing his birth records will hurt him even more than not producing them.
Now, I could be wrong. Barack Obama can prove me wrong by producing a good birth certificate. But he hasn't. Will he? Can he?
NO "STANDING" TO SUE?
In the case of Berg v. Obama, US Federal Judge Richard Barclay Surrick agreed with Obama's lawyers and ruled that Berg, as a citizen, as a voter, has no "standing" to enforce the United States Constitution. I have read that other agencies have asserted that only another presidential candidate has standing to sue respecting the qualifications of a candidate, presumably because, arguendo, only another presidential candidate could be injured (lose an election) as a result of a non-qualified candidate on the ballot.
This may be the most patently absurd, illogical, incomprehensible, astonishing, mind-boggling, and utterly stupid argument I have ever heard in my life – and from a Federal Judge, at that. And if I didn't make myself perfectly clear, let me know and I'll try again.
Let's do the analysis.
1. The U.S. Constitution is a CONTRACT between The People, The States, and The United States, the federal government, that defines and limits the role of the federal government, and the rights of the States and The People, and, among other things, defines and limits the qualifications for president, i.e., that the president must be over the age of 35 years, and must be a natural born citizen.
2. Any party to a CONTRACT has standing to enforce it. This is as basic as it gets. Contract Law 101. First week of law school stuff. And it seems that lawyers and judges all over the country have forgotten all about it. Also, the Constitution was intended to benefit all American citizens, We, The People, and in basic contract law the intended beneficiaries of a CONTRACT, i.e., us, also have standing to enforce it.
3. If We, The People, do not have standing to enforce the CONTRACT, the U.S. Constitution, then it is unenforceable, and if it is unenforceable it is just a historic curiosity that means nothing. It’s just an old piece of parchment. But that was not the intent, and to give intent to the CONTRACT it must be enforceable by its parties and beneficiaries.
4. We, The People, have standing under the First Amendment "to petition the government for redress of grievances." If we have a grievance that a non-citizen, illegal alien, is running for president, I think the First Amendment unequivocally gives every American citizen standing to sue the government to redress that grievance and enforce the Constitution.
I think Judge Richard Barclay Surrick is dead wrong, illogically wrong, irrationally wrong, legally wrong, I think his legal analysis of this issue, in legalese, stinks.
THE DUTY OF CONGRESS
Article II, Section 1, requires that upon taking office the President of the United States shall take the following oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the
United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States."
Article VI, Clause 3, requires that Senators and Representatives requires:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution . . ."
Members of Congress take this oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Having taken this oath, Sen. Barack Obama has violated his oath of office if he is refusing to disclose a birth certificate that proves his candidacy for president is unconstitutional, and I believe this is a mandatory basis for his impeachment.
Having taken these oaths, the President, the Vice President (an executive officer of the United States), every member of the Senate and House, every member of every State legislature, and every executive and judicial officers of the United States and of each State, has a mandatory duty per Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution to "support and defend" the Constitution, and that would necessarily include taking whatever action is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President.
And every Federal Judge, and every Justice of the Supreme Court, having taken this oath, also have a mandatory duty to "protect and defend" the Constitution by doing whatever is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" ever becomes President. Indeed, I believe that the Supreme Court has a sua sponte duty to resolve this dispute by ordering, on its own initiative, the immediate production of all of Obama's birth records in order to confirm his place of birth, and prevent the election of an UnConstitutional President. So far, all Justices of the Supreme Court have failed this mandatory duty.
So far, the President, the Vice President, every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, ever Federal Judge and Justice, every member of every State legislature, and every governor, have failed in this duty. They have all failed to fulfill their oaths of office. Every one. They must all demand that Sen. Barack Obama either (a) produce a good birth certificate proving his status as a "natural born citizen," or (b) withdraw his candidacy before November 4th.
All those who do not should be impeached for having failed their oath of office.
THE GREATEST SWINDLE IN HISTORY
If Senator Barack Hussein Obama cannot prove that he is a "natural born citizen," then Obama, the Democrat National Committee, the Democrats in the Senate and House who support him, and others such as former president Bill Clinton who openly support him, have perpetrated the greatest swindle in history by falsely and fraudulently misrepresenting Obama as Constitutionally eligible to be president, concealing the truth about his place of birth, thereby inducing millions of Democrats by the fraud of concealment, by the lie of non-disclosure, by "trick and device," to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the Barack Obama presidential campaign to elect an UnConstitutional President.
Note, this is a fraud perpetrated by Sen. Barack Obama, the DNC, and hundreds of Democrats in Congress, on their own constituency, the Democrat voters of America. It is a fraud of the Democrats, by the Democrats, and perpetrated on the Democrats. And it has defrauded Democrats out of more than $600 million.
According to their oaths of office, every Democrat member of Congress has an affirmative duty to assure that their presidential candidate is constitutionally qualified. As soon as questions about Obama's birth arose, every Democrat in Congress had a mandatory duty to confirm his eligibility by demanding release of his birth records. But, they have not. Not to my knowledge. Instead, every Democrat in Congress is complicit in the cover up – the cover up – of Obama's birth certificate, by failing to demand full disclosure to confirm his place of birth.
In my opinion, unless Obama can produce a good birth certificate proving that he is a "natural born citizen," then every Democrat member of Congress, every person managing Obama's campaign, every officer and director of the Democrat National Commitee, and every person who has ever taken an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution and is now supporting an UnConstitutional candidate for president, has participated in a vast left-wing conspiracy to defraud millions of Democrats out of hundreds of millions of dollars to elect an UnConstitutional President.
In my opinion, every one of these people, hundreds of them, should be prosecuted for fraud under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), for if Obama is not a "natural born citizen," that is what the Democrat National Committee (DNC) has become. And every one of them should be tried, convicted, and sent to prison for decades, for this is a $600 billion swindle of America's Democrats, a swindle perpetrated by the DNC and Barack Obama.
Now, I could be wrong. I could be wrong about every opinion I have expressed here.
Sen. Barack Hussein Obama can prove me wrong, quickly, simply, easily, by opening the doors of the hospitals and the Hawaiian Department of Health and showing us, showing America, showing the Democrats, all of his birth records.
Unless and until he does, I will remain convinced that Barack Hussein Obama is not an American citizen.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Raymond S. Kraft is an attorney and writer in Northern California. He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Barrack Hussein Obama said he is going to change America in 7 days, has anyone been listening........He Is Radical!!!!!
Obama, Ayers, and PLO supporters toast Edward Said’s successor, but the press doesn’t think it’s quite as newsworthy as Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor ... who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.
Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.
Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?
Do we really have to ask?
So now, let’s leave thought experiments and return to reality: Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?
At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University’s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist.
The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency.
Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?
Gateway Pundit reports that the Times has the videotape but is suppressing it.
Back in April, the Times published a gentle story about the fete. Reporter Peter Wallsten avoided, for example, any mention of the inconvenient fact that the revelers included Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife and fellow Weatherman terrorist. These self-professed revolutionary Leftists are friendly with both Obama and Khalidi — indeed, researcher Stanley Kurtz has noted that Ayers and Khalidi were “best friends.” (And — small world! — it turns out that the Obamas are extremely close to the Khalidis, who have reportedly babysat the Obama children.)
Nor did the Times report the party was thrown by AAAN. Wallsten does tell us that the AAAN received grants from the Leftist Woods Fund when Obama was on its board — but, besides understating the amount (it was $75,000, not $40,000), the Times mentions neither that Ayers was also on the Woods board at the time nor that AAAN is rabidly anti-Israel. (Though the organization regards Israel as illegitimate and has sought to justify Palestinian terrorism, Wallsten describes the AAAN as “a social service group.”)
Perhaps even more inconveniently, the Times also let slip that it had obtained a videotape of the party.
Wallsten’s story is worth excerpting at length (italics are mine):
It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.
A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."...
[T]he warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.
At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."
One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."
Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than … his opponents for the White House....
At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.
The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.
Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter.
In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel — a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.
So why is the Times sitting on the videotape of the Khalidi festivities?
Given Obama's (preposterous) claims that he didn’t know Ayers that well and was unfamiliar with Ayers’s views, why didn't the Times report that Ayers and Dohrn were at the bash?
Was it not worth mentioning the remarkable coincidence that both Obama and Ayers — the “education reform” allies who barely know each other … except to the extent they together doled out tens of millions of dollars to Leftist agitators, attacked the criminal justice system, and raved about each others books — just happen to be intimate friends of the same anti-American Israel-basher? (Despite having watched the videotape, Wallsten told Gateway Pundit he “did not know” whether Ayers was there.)
Why won’t the Times tell us what was said in the various Khalidi testimonials?
On that score, Ayers and Dohrn have always had characteristically noxious views on the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. And, true to form, they have always been quite open about them. There is no reason to believe those views have ever changed. Here, for example, is what they had to say in Prairie Fire, the Weather Underground’s 1974 Communist manifesto (emphasis in original):
Palestinian independence is opposed with reactionary schemes by Jordan, completely opposed with military terror by Israel, and manipulated by the U.S. The U.S.-sponsored notion of stability and status-quo in the Mideast is an attempt to preserve U.S. imperialist control of oil, using zionist power as the cat's paw. The Mideast has become a world focus of struggles over oil resources and control of strategic sea and air routes. Yet the Palestinian struggle is at the heart of other conflicts in the Mideast. Only the Palestinians can determine the solution which reflects the aspirations of the Palestinian people. No "settlements" in the Mideast which exclude the Palestinians will resolve the conflict. Palestinian liberation will not be suppressed.
The U.S. people have been seriously deceived about the Palestinians and Israel. This calls for a campaign to educate and focus attention on the true situation: teach-ins, debates, and open clear support for Palestinian liberation; reading about the Palestinian movement—The Disinherited by Fawaz Turki, Enemy of the Sun; opposing U.S. aid to Israel. Our silence or acceptance of pro-zionist policy is a form of complicity with U.S.-backed aggression and terror, and a betrayal of internationalism.
SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE!
U.S. OUT OF THE MIDEAST!
END AID TO ISRAEL!
Barack Obama wouldn’t possibly let something like that pass without a spirited defense of the Israel he tells us he so staunchly supports … would he? I guess to answer that question, we’d have to know what was on the tape.
But who has time for such trifles? After all, isn’t Diana Vreeland about to critique Sarah Palin’s sartorial splendor?
— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy chairs the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies’s Center for Law & Counterterrorism and is the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books 2008).
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
By: David A. Patten
A Barack Obama administration would be a “nation killer” if Democrats attain a “supermajority” in the Senate, a leading conservative figure on immigration warned Tuesday.
Obama also has said he wants to make the 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. citizens as soon as he can — an amnesty program that would make them legally entitled to full government benefits, including Social Security and health care.
William Gheen, president of the Raleigh, N.C.-based Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), says Obama’s plan would make it politically impossible to secure America’s borders. He describes Obama and a new Democratic Congress as a “worst-case scenario” for border and immigration security.
“I would paint that scenario as a nation killer,” Gheen, a former campaign consultant and an outspoken advocate for stronger border control policies, tells Newsmax. “I would expect amnesty to pass within a year. That means in the next presidential election, you will have a new voting bloc of 15 million illegal aliens who turn into voters.
“And that voting bloc,” he says, “especially in the Southwest United States, would be enough to take full control of most city, state, and county governments, thus destroying any future hopes for immigration enforcement or border security.”
Although GOP nominee John McCain has rarely confronted Obama during the campaign over immigration — presumably to avoid alienating Hispanic voters — Obama’s record reflects a clear focus on expanding entitlements to undocumented workers.
As a state senator in Illinois, for example, Obama co-sponsored that state’s version of the DREAM Act, which allowed youngsters in the country illegally to receive in-state tuition. He later supported similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.
During a September campaign swing, Obama told the North Carolina Public Radio station WUNC that the children of illegal immigrants should have an opportunity to attend community colleges.
“For us to deny them access to community college, even though they’ve never lived in Mexico, as least as far as they can tell, is to deny that this is how we’ve always built this country up,” Obama said.
According to the NewsObserver.com, the McCain campaign reacted to Obama’s remark by issuing the statement: “John McCain does not support amnesty or benefits for undocumented immigrants. He has consistently opposed giving amnesty or public benefits to undocumented immigrants.”
Obama, who tends to dismiss discussion of his pro-immigration positions as politically motivated “distractions,” has demonstrated no such reticence to expand entitlements for illegals. Specifically:
Obama’s plan for universal health care would include coverage for illegal immigrants, according to political strategist and Newsmax columnist Dick Morris. Morris has warned that covering illegals “adds dramatically” to the cost of universal health care.
In March, Obama voted to table a Senate amendment that would support the withdrawal of federal assistance “to sanctuary cities that ignore the immigration laws of the United States and create safe havens for illegal aliens and potential terrorists.” McCain did not cast a vote.
Obama supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform legislation that was defeated in 2006. Since then, McCain has taken the position that securing the borders must precede immigration reform. Obama continues to support a process to “bring people out of the shadows” and eventually obtain legal status (at which point they would be eligible for the federally mandated benefits available to anyone, such as Social Security). Obama also calls for enhanced border security.
The Democratic candidate for president supports, in principle, providing state-funded welfare benefits to legal immigrants. While a state senator, Obama supported allocating state funds to provide Medicaid coverage to some legal immigrants, according to OnTheIssues.org.
Obama has supported increasing the number of work visas issued each year, such as the H1-B visa, especially for applicants with specialized skills. According to OnTheIssues.org, Obama co-sponsored, along with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a bill that would provide federal funding to help states provide health care and education to non-U.S. citizens.
Obama strongly supports encouraging American children to become bilingual and, at one point in the campaign, appeared to suggest it should be mandatory. In June, he voted against a Senate provision that would declare English the national language of the United States. McCain voted for it.
Edward I. Nelson, the chairman of the nonprofit U.S. Border Control organization, warns that “Welfare and in-state tuition are powerful inducements to illegal immigration, as are free medical benefits.”
Nelson says his organization has awarded both Obama and McCain an “F” on their immigration and border control policies.
Gheen says Obama and McCain both would ultimately favor amnesty for illegals, albeit differently.
“Obama would give in-state tuition and driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, then make them legal,” Gheen says. “McCain would make them legal, and then give them in-state tuition and driver’s licenses.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Please find below a special message from our sponsor, the Our Country Deserves Better PAC committee, which has some important information on new television ads in the presidential race that they want to share with you. Thank you
Two television ads calling for the defeat of the Obama/Biden campaign have Obama supporters panicked, with some Obama supporters contacting TV stations and the Justice Department in an attempt to censor the anti-Obama advertisements.
The ads are produced by the pro-McCain/Palin political action committee, Our Country Deserves Better PAC and are running in the key battleground states that will determine this election.
Here's the first ad everyone's talking about with reporting on the anti-Obama ad appearing on Fox News Channel, CNN, CBS News, Time Magazine's political report, "The Page", the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, New York Newsday, and several other media outlets:
WATCH "OBAMA'S WRONG VALUES" - HERE
The next ad is being run specifically in Michigan - where the Obama campaign has now followed the McCain campaign in pulling resources out of the state. This means the state of Michigan is now "in play" -- if we can raise enough money, we can turn the tide and erase the lead Obama's campaign had built over the past 2 weeks. The ad features Obama's connections to such controversial and corrupt figures including domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, anti-American and racist pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the scandal-plagued former Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick:
WATCH AD ON OBAMA'S TIES TO AYERS, WRIGHT, KILPATRICK
And finally this ad below which has begun to run in key swing states and has been denounced by Obama supporters. The reason they are upset? It features Sen. Hillary Clinton ripping into Obama on a host of fronts, and could swing Independents and Democrats into the McCain camp in the final days before the election.
WATCH AD: HILLARY RIPS OBAMA - HERE
P.S. We have officially launched our "Stop Obama Tour" across the nation. We need to get crowds out to these events, especially with the heightened media interest in our effort now building. Full tour details - HERE.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Mohamed Atta Gets His Driver's License
Dear Fellow American:
We have just weeks to go before Election Day . . . time is running short for us to avert a major disaster for our country. That disaster's name is President Barack Obama.
But this disaster can be averted. I'm confident about this -- even though the slanted media are overstating Obama's inevitability.
But the numbers don't lie.
The latest Zogby poll had John McCain trailing Obama by two points. Just two points!
Despite the full-court press to destroy McCain and Sarah Palin, Katie Couric's antics against her, and a daily onslaught of media spin . . . McCain is still within striking distance.
The stakes have never been higher for the future of the country.
We either patriotically turn the country over to a man who has proudly served his nation in war time and peace -- or we face electing a man who has a checkered past, a man who has counted domestic terrorists among his friends, and a man who spent 15 years in a church where his pastor regularly damned and condemned the United States.
Barack Obama is not simply a risky choice as our next president --
He is a dangerous one.
This is why I have taken the helm here at the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee.
Here at the National Republican Trust, we understand our mission. It's simple. It will also drive the left-wing media nuts.
Here's the plan: We will tell the American people the truth about Barack Obama!
Every time John McCain or Sarah Palin tries to tell the truth about Obama, they are painted as mean-spirited and negative.
We here at the National Republican Trust can do the job McCain and Palin can't.
But we need your help. Time is urgent -- it's crunch time.
The latest reports show Obama outspending McCain by 3-to-1 in key states.
Millions of dubious new voters with the help of groups like ACORN are being registered to put the most extreme liberal in the history of the presidency in the White House.
But I'll shock you: that's OK!
Let them spend millions in getting new "voters" and millions more in TV ads.
I believe truth is more powerful than lies. How powerful?
Well, so powerful, in fact, that I believe one airing of our TV ads will equal at least 10 airings of theirs.
This issue will nail him.
In the closing weeks of this election, Obama is trying to remake himself as a moderate to win over lower-income, white, Democratic and independent voters.
He wants to hide the facts about his record. He is the most extreme liberal ever to be nominated by a major party.
We all know his 100 percent liberal rating in Congress, his support for the TOTAL gun ban in Washington, D.C., his opposition to protecting babies born alive, and his support for tax increases.
But there is one issue almost all Americans agree on: Illegal aliens should not be given driver's licenses.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Exclusive: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn – Friends of Barack ObamaJohn Howard
I am a child of the ‘60s. I grew up with the radical twaddle of people like Tom Hayden (the Ted Baxter of the radical Left), and Romper Room Revolutionaries William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, the Mao and Jiang Qing of adolescent radicalism. It was an overheated time made worse by nursery school traitors. It was a time during which the most pampered generation in the history of mankind went into an extended tantrum, punctuated only by the indulgent sighs of their misguided and clueless parents who still apparently thought the destructive impulses of their little darlings were somehow cute. Bill Ayers’ father, the late Thomas G. Ayers, Commonwealth Edison Chairman, Chicago grandee and symbol of muscular capitalism comes to mind. (Does anyone really believe that Ayers and Dohrn, wanted by the FBI, lived without family help and contact for 11 years “underground” in Chicago, the town his prominent father and powerful friends helped run and which has been described as having the distinction of being the only completely corrupt city in the nation? Please.)
But Ayers and Dohrn demonstrated that low grade, child radicals, too, could be dangerous. Their simple minded nihilism was exceeded only by their almost complete ineptitude. But it is important to recall who they were and to know who they are because not only do they still exist and spread their poison, their very relationship to a national candidate for President should chill every thinking citizen.
An outgrowth of an earlier Leftist organization, the Students for a Democratic Society, was established in 1960 with a manifesto that represented a break with the traditional non-Communist Left. With Tom Hayden at its helm, it is unsurprising that it started as a shallow, self-dramatizing collection of students fresh from panty raids and looking for something more interesting to do. As the turmoil of the ‘60s continued to ferment, it became more and more strident, inflexible and radical in its project.
After an internecine war in 1969, it split into different groups, among which was the Weathermen, a would-be domestic terrorist organization with little apparent purpose except to engage in violent acts in service of the national tantrum and of a badly articulated, simplistic ideology with little grounding in anything other than the romantic fantasy that they were somehow aiding “the Revolution.” The preening self-regard of its leaders was breathtaking.
Its primary activity was the issuance of dramatic “communiqués” from the underground in a grotesque imitation of stilted Soviet-speak, like a bad ‘50s movie, threatening violent action in instant mayhem. Its first act was a riot called “Days of Rage,” not surprisingly in Chicago. With its usual flair, the Weathermen announced that its protest would be the largest ever, but with its usual ineptitude, only a few hundred showed up. They blew up a statue honoring policemen who had been killed or injured in earlier riots. (They blew it up again when it was rebuilt several years later.) They burned cars, shattered windows and attacked policemen, injuring 28.
Bernardine Dohrn, in an astonishing display of hubris, demonstrated her simple-mindedness and limited forensic gifts in her attempt to define their purpose: “We are building a communist organization to be part of the forces which build a revolutionary communist party to lead the working class to seize power and build socialism… We must further the study of Marxism-Leninism within the Weather Underground Organization. The struggle for Marxism-Leninism is the most significant development in our recent history. We discovered thru [sic] our own experiences what revolutionaries all over the world have found — that Marxism-Leninism is the science of revolution, the revolutionary ideology of the working class, our guide to the struggle.”
History has now shown us the merit of that project as even those who knew it best and preserved it longest have rejected the moronic and evil ideology that was Marxism-Leninism – but not Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers.
Shortly after the Days of Rage riot, the Weathermen risibly “declared war” on the United States. The sheer pretentiousness of these junior Bolsheviks was vaguely laughable. But they were deadly serious. Dohrn constructed and planted an anti-personnel bomb containing heavy metal staples and metal projectiles on the window ledge of a police facility, killing one officer, Bryan V. McDonnell, and severely wounding and permanently blinding another, Robert Fogarty. Their families never recovered. Ayers laughingly and emphatically admitted his participation and Dohrn’s skill in placing the fatal bomb.
In 1970, the Weatherman attacked New York City policemen with bombs and firebombed the home of a New York judge presiding over the criminal trial of black thugs who had wrapped themselves in the mantle of radicalism; a favorite ruse of the time. They went on to plant bombs at the United States Capital, the New York City Police Department and the Pentagon, all the time issuing taunting communiqués suggesting more attacks were on the way. Had it not all been so lethal, it would have had all the earmarks of children playing war in the back yard. It is a shame it was not so benign.
Despite their later, self-serving statements that they really intended to harm only property, the evidence is clearly otherwise. In 1970, an explosion rocked Greenwich Village, destroying a beautiful, privately owned townhouse. The townhouse had been converted to a bomb factory and, demonstrating the ineptitude for which the Weathermen had become almost as legendary as their infantile communiqués, three of them blew themselves up while making bombs. It was a fitting end to the meaningless lives of Diana Oughton, Ted Gold and Terry Robbins, whose deaths stunned their colleagues but left the world a little cleaner. The fragmentation bombs they were making were intended for the murder of American soldiers at a dance at Fort Dix and for the destruction of a library at Columbia University.
Who were these people? Children of privilege whose nihilistic, radical project was intended to destroy this nation. They were, and are, at root, evil. Commenting on the Charles Manson murders, Ms. Dohrn told her “collective:” "Dig it! First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in their bellies. Wild!" “Dig it”, indeed. The “belly” she was referring to contained Sharon Tate’s unborn child. What kind of perverted monster could find pleasure in the thought that a woman eight and one half months pregnant, on the eve of delivery, was killed and mutilated with a fork left sticking out of the unborn infant inher abdomen? That is the measure of Bernardine Dohrn and her consort, Bill Ayers, who attempted to suggest she was “kidding” when she made the statement. It is hard to imagine any context in which the “joke” would be comprehensible to anyone who is not unhinged by radical ideology. No, she wasn’t kidding. Anyone who could wantonly murder police officers with a bomb that shredded them like lettuce has no soul and could not be moved by the Manson Family’s savagery.
And so it goes to this day. Dohrn’s latest ravings are of a piece with those of her past. In the July/August 2003 issue of the Monthly Review, she descended, yet again, into the pit of radicalism from which she never really emerged ranting about “American imperialism.” Fulminating about law enforcement and the reasonable effort by our government to keep its citizens, even those as unworthy and unthinkable as Bernardine Dohrn, safe. Gibbering about American “oppression.” Biting, yet again, the hand that protects her.
Some things are not forgivable. There are some things for which one cannot atone. Treason is one. Betrayal of one’s country is another. Wanton murder, still another. But apparently there is forgiveness in Chicago. No one has ever accused the present Mayor Daley of an overabundance of grey matter. But he told the New York Times that he finds value in Ayers and Dohrn. He says Ayers “has done a lot of good in this city and nationally.” “People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life.” Mistakes? Deliberate, cold blooded murder is a “mistake?” Conspiracy to murder soldiers is a “mistake?” Mocking the murder and mutilation of an expectant mother on the verge of giving birth is a “mistake?”
When Dohrn emerged from the miasma, she was offered a job at Sidley Austin, one of Chicago’s most prestigious law firms, even though she was denied a law license by the State of Illinois. The managing partner, Howard Trienans, a friend of Mr. Ayers’ father, thought she would make a fine addition to the firm. In the sort of dismissive sarcasm so favored by those who are not used to being contradicted, he said “She didn’t get her law license because she is stubborn. She wouldn’t say she was sorry.” She didn’t say she was sorry, Mr. Trienans, because she isn’t. What more need be said? One wonders how understanding he might have been had one of her targets been Sidley Austin for representing the monopolistic AT&T, his most lucrative client.
Her fatuous narcissism continues to this day in her writings and defiant view that this nation that has brought freedom to the greatest number; this nation that is a beacon of hope to people throughout the world; this nation that nurtured the idea of liberty when there were none other to protect it from those to whom Ayers and Dohrn paid their fealty, is the major source of evil on the globe.
It would be easy to dismiss Ayers and Dohrn as toothless relics of a forgotten age; witless simpletons reduced to legal clinics and the academy. But they are not sorry. And they still spread their poison. And they still have influence.
Obama’s views on foreign policy did not happen in a vacuum. His disdain for the idea of American exceptionalism comes from the dangerous world view of the milieu from which he so recently emerged. His view of the military, America’s history and his opposition to war come from the environment in which he has immersed himself for these past 20 years; an environment sharply defined by Ayers, Dohrn and their allies and protectors. The New York Times would have us believe Obama and the Ayers hardly knew each other. Yet the exalted Mayor Daley knows them well in the hothouse of Chicago politics, and says so. Is it even remotely likely that an obscure state senator who lived three blocks from Dohrn and Ayers and was first introduced politically at their home does not? It hardly matters, though. They are cut from the same cloth.
Knowing who Ayers and Dohrn were and are, we must ask ourselves: what sort of people would embrace them? What kind of people would excuse their acts and, more importantly, why? What decent person would welcome them into civil society? What does it say for a public official that he does not condemn them outright? What does it say of a public official that he would accept any help they might offer? That he is ignorant of history? That he is young? That he is naïve? Or is it because, when linked to others of his associations, he may sympathize with their twisted radicalism?
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor John W. Howard is a lawyer, specializing in corporate and business litigation who also founded a non-profit, public interest law firm specializing in First, Second and Tenth Amendment issues. Feedback: email@example.com.