FallingOsh 0 #26 October 15, 2008 Quote You're correct insomuch as I haven't read the 400+ page resolution that passed. You're incorrect if you're suggesting that it wasn't corporate welfare. Blues, Dave I'll go with the basic definitions. The government gets nothing for handing out welfare. Not a damn thing. It's a straight give away. The bill gives the government a right to buy up bad debt and invest in major banks. That means the govenment gets something in return. Hence the argument about America becoming socialist. The plan is to eventually sell everything back after the market recovers, possibly for a profit. Whether or not that will actually happen remains to be seen, but that's the plan. Vastly different than welfare even in it's basic definition. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #27 October 15, 2008 Quote I'll go with the basic definitions. The government gets nothing for handing out welfare. Not a damn thing. It's a straight give away. The bill gives the government a right to buy up bad debt and invest in major banks. That means the govenment gets something in return. Hence the argument about America becoming socialist. The plan is to eventually sell everything back after the market recovers, possibly for a profit. Whether or not that will actually happen remains to be seen, but that's the plan. Vastly different than welfare even in it's basic definition. That's the theory. And it's not necessarily a bad one, IF we collect. If we had a better record of collecting on oil leases or if the IRS collected from the largest tax evaders or if our defense budget's records were detailed enough to allow for an audit, then I might have more confidence that we might get our money back. But where the welfare really lies in this fiasco is through the lack of accountability in this bail out. The people who helped cause and profited by this melt down are earning interest on their winnings, and probably bought back in to the market on Monday. And the fact that some are now unemployed is no consolation. Give me $40 million and I'll quit my job and promise to never work for anyone ever again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #28 October 15, 2008 Wall Street Journal on Ayers: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122402888900234543.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #29 October 15, 2008 QuoteYou do realize that it was Bush's administration that proposed the legislation, and the first $700 BILLION worth of welfare, right? that's why, secretly, he's the hero of the Dems. They can't actually say it out loud, though - the false R by his name and force of habit. But the true socialists will praise him in the future for it. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 27 #30 October 15, 2008 QuoteWall Street Journal on Ayers: Stupid left wing controled rag... Oh, wait....Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bwnco 0 #31 October 15, 2008 "Your Republican hero Bush just handed out the world's largest welfare check." Which was handed out because of the fricking mess the Carter and Clinton adminastration got us in. By forcing banks to give out loans to people with piss poor credit, and no jobs.. They default, and of course the working stiffs are left with the fricking tab. You bet, get some more Dems in there, so they can redistribute the wealth in the form of more taxes. Totally screw the economy up wants again.. Simple fricking economics... and your right.. the bail out is simple that welfare.. and its Screwed up, should have let the market play and correct it self... But you cannot tax your self into prosperity, it that is true.. lets have 90% tax rate,, the country will be wealthy if that was the case.. Why try more socialist programs that have failed miserably everywhere in the world.. I dont see people dieing everyday to sneek into France... or?? Why I still know that despite it being somewhat screwed up.. America and Captialism is what has made us great!! Last time i checked, everyone still wants to come to America.."Anything I've ever done that ultimately was worthwhile initially scared me to death." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #32 October 15, 2008 Quote That's the theory. And it's not necessarily a bad one, IF we collect. If we had a better record of collecting on oil leases or if the IRS collected from the largest tax evaders or if our defense budget's records were detailed enough to allow for an audit, then I might have more confidence that we might get our money back. But where the welfare really lies in this fiasco is through the lack of accountability in this bail out. The people who helped cause and profited by this melt down are earning interest on their winnings, and probably bought back in to the market on Monday. And the fact that some are now unemployed is no consolation. Give me $40 million and I'll quit my job and promise to never work for anyone ever again. All true. My argument was that the bill isn't welfare. There's a plan to recoup with a possible profit. Whether they do that or not is up in the air. There is no plan, never was, never will be, to get anything back from welfare. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,853 #33 October 15, 2008 Quote"Your Republican hero Bush just handed out the world's largest welfare check." Which was handed out because of the fricking mess the Carter and Clinton adminastration got us in. By forcing banks to give out loans to people with piss poor credit, and no jobs.. They default, and of course the working stiffs are left with the fricking tab. Ummm - no. The mess was caused by the banks over-leveraging themselves on securitized shit. The CRA loans had no higher default rate than "conventional" loans, and lower default rate than non CRA NINA loans and other subprime stuff.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bwnco 0 #34 October 15, 2008 "still can't bring yourself to face the facts that the dem's caused this meltdown, even with the vidoes proving it? " Thats what gets so damned frustrating. You can show the left the proof and they ignore it. Meltdown was all bad paper there went out, and forced down the banks throats by the fricking CARTER and CLINTON adminastrations. Dems!!! I believe.... Like Obamas ties to ACORN another great organization that of course has not created any voter fraud. Ties to Ayers that great american patriot, his absolutley never racist preacher of his church he listened to for 20 years,his ties growing up and in college with muslim religion, his lack of letting people know how he paid for all his Ivy league schooling.. all this is just lies and bullshit... good grief!! Talk about digging a hole and sticking your head in the sand whom supports the Dems and Obama. Not a huge Bush or McCain fan either, hated the bail out etc.. but I damn sure know McCain was willing to die for America and has a backbone.. Obama is a Junior Senator with ties to a bunch of corrupt SOB's whom hate this country and he is a fricking Socialist like the rest of the Dems.. its never worked anywhere in the world, why do you guys keep thinking Socialism is the greatest thing that walked the earth.. How about this.. everyone works, even the lazy SOB's in the inner cities that refuse and leech off the system.. Wow! what a concept!! work for what you can get and no handouts.. So simple a first grader can understand it better then the left!"Anything I've ever done that ultimately was worthwhile initially scared me to death." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #35 October 15, 2008 > Meltdown was all bad paper there went out, and forced down the banks throats by >the fricking CARTER and CLINTON adminastrations. Again, no. The Fannie and Freddie loans were not defaulted on at a higher rate than any of the other bad loans out there. If anything, the ability to HAVE bad paper is a much bigger factor. And that was the brainchild of Phil Gramm, who removed many of the reporting requirements for that bad paper. >Dems!!! I believe.... Belief is great; facts are better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 October 15, 2008 Quote> Meltdown was all bad paper there went out, and forced down the banks throats by >the fricking CARTER and CLINTON adminastrations. Again, no. The Fannie and Freddie loans were not defaulted on at a higher rate than any of the other bad loans out there. If anything, the ability to HAVE bad paper is a much bigger factor. And that was the brainchild of Phil Gramm, who removed many of the reporting requirements for that bad paper. >Dems!!! I believe.... Belief is great; facts are better. Like the fact of Cuomo pushing F&F into the sub-prime market?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #37 October 15, 2008 Quote Thats what gets so damned frustrating. You can show the left the proof and they ignore it. Meltdown was all bad paper there went out, and forced down the banks throats by the fricking CARTER and CLINTON adminastrations. Dems!!! I believe.... Like Obamas ties to ACORN another great organization that of course has not created any voter fraud. Ties to Ayers that great american patriot, his absolutley never racist preacher of his church he listened to for 20 years,his ties growing up and in college with muslim religion, his lack of letting people know how he paid for all his Ivy league schooling.. all this is just lies and bullshit... good grief!! Talk about digging a hole and sticking your head in the sand whom supports the Dems and Obama. Wow! This is probably the most comprehensive collection of unsubstantiated, dishonest, blindly biased talking point regurgitation that I've seen in quite some time. And I was just listening to Limbaugh! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,853 #38 October 15, 2008 QuoteQuote> Meltdown was all bad paper there went out, and forced down the banks throats by >the fricking CARTER and CLINTON adminastrations. Again, no. The Fannie and Freddie loans were not defaulted on at a higher rate than any of the other bad loans out there. If anything, the ability to HAVE bad paper is a much bigger factor. And that was the brainchild of Phil Gramm, who removed many of the reporting requirements for that bad paper. >Dems!!! I believe.... Belief is great; facts are better. Like the fact of Cuomo pushing F&F into the sub-prime market? Is that the best you've got? 6 years after Cuomo left HUD the CEO of Fannie wrote: "By entering new markets -- especially Alt-A and subprime -- and guaranteeing more of our customers' products at market prices, we met our goal of increasing market share from 22 to 25 percent," Jan. 3, 2007. Last month, Fannie reported that loans from 2006 and 2007 accounted for almost 60 percent of its credit losses. And Clinton got a BJ.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #39 October 15, 2008 Media Help Obama Cover A Suspect Past By THOMAS SOWELL Posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:30 PM PT One of the oldest phenomena of American elections — criticism of one's opponent — has in recent times been stigmatized by much of the media as "negative advertising." Is this because the criticism has gotten more vicious or more personal? You might think so, if you were totally ignorant of history, as so many graduates of even our elite universities are. Although Grover Cleveland was elected president twice, he had to overcome a major scandal that he had fathered a child out of wedlock, which was considered more of a disgrace then than today. Even giants such as Lincoln and Jefferson were called names that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has been called. Why then is "negative advertising" such a big deal these days? The dirty little secret is this: Liberal candidates have needed to escape their past and pretend that they are not liberals, because so many voters have had it with liberals. In 1988, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis called himself a technocrat, a pragmatic solver of problems, despite a classic liberal track record of big spending, big taxes and policies that were anti-business and pro-criminal. When the truth about what he actually did as governor was brought out during the presidential election campaign, the media were duly shocked — not by Dukakis' record, but by the Republicans' exposing his record. John Kerry, with a similar ultraliberal record, topped off by inflammatory and unsubstantiated attacks on U.S. military men in Vietnam, disdained the whole process of labeling as something unworthy. The mainstream media closed ranks around him as well, deploring those who labeled Kerry a liberal. Obama is much smoother. Instead of issuing explicit denials, he gives speeches that sound so moderate, so nuanced and so lofty that even some conservative Republicans go for them. How could anyone believe that such a man is the very opposite of what he claims to be — unless they check out the record of what he has actually done? In words, Obama is a uniter instead of a divider. In deeds, he's spent years promoting polarization. That is what a "community organizer" does, creating a sense of grievance, envy and resentment in order to mobilize political action to get more of the taxpayers' money or to force banks to lend to people they don't consider good risks, as the community organizing group ACORN did. After Obama moved beyond the role of a community organizer, he promoted the same polarization in his other roles. That is what he did when he spent the money of the Woods Fund bankrolling programs to spread the politics of grievance and resentment into the schools. That is what he did when he spent the taxpayers' money bankrolling the grievance and resentment ideology of Michael Pfleger. When Obama donated $20,000 to Jeremiah Wright, does anyone imagine that he was unaware that Wright was the epitome of grievance, envy and resentment hype? Or were Wright's sermons too subtle for Obama to pick up that message? How subtle is "Goddamn America!"? Those in the media who deplore "negative advertising" regard it as unseemly to dig up ugly facts instead of sticking to the beautiful rhetoric of an election year. The oft-repeated mantra is that we should stick to the "real issues." What are called "real issues" are election-year talking points, while the actual track record of the candidates is treated as a distraction — and somehow an unworthy distraction. Does anyone in real life put more faith in what people say than in what they do? A few gullible people do — and they often get deceived and defrauded big-time. Obama has carried election-year makeovers to a new high, presenting himself as a uniter who reaches across the partisan and racial divides — after decades of promoting polarization in each of his successive roles and each of his choices of political allies. Yet the media treat exposing a fraudulent election-year image as far worse than letting someone acquire the powers of the highest office in the land through sheer deception. Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #40 October 15, 2008 Quote Quote You do realize that it was Bush's administration that proposed the legislation, and the first $700 BILLION worth of welfare, right? that's why, secretly, he's the hero of the Dems. They can't actually say it out loud, though - the false R by his name and force of habit. But the true socialists will praise him in the future for it. You're probably right...this is just him in his "legacy building" mode, right? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #41 October 15, 2008 Everyone has an opinion. I have one, and it's not based on someone else's. I will admit however, that it's interesting to hear all of the excuses for failure recently. Unchecked free market capitalism failed, trickle down failed, now negative advertising has failed. The explanations why fall somewhere between humorous and sad. That's my opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,853 #42 October 16, 2008 Thomas Sowell - unrepentant deregulator. That gives him a lot of credibility this month. He may appreciate negative campaigning, but the electorate clearly does not.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mfnren 2 #43 October 16, 2008 Hhhmmm and you say that Obama keeps bad company? Let's take a look at who is standing beside Mccain and the Republicans... HERE And speaking of Mccains involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, the 700 Club had large hand in the funding of those right-wing death squads... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #44 October 16, 2008 Blood On the Hands of Obama’s Terror Associate By Cliff Kincaid: & Wes Vernon Thursday, July 24, 2008 Barack Obama was asked, during one of the Democratic presidential debates, about his relationship with communist terrorist Bill Ayers. But the more controversial relationship was with his wife, communist terrorist Bernardine Dohrn. Both were present and hosted Obama when he launched a run for the Illinois State Senate. In effect, Ayers and Dohrn sponsored Obama’s political career. But it has now come to light that Dohrn repeatedly refused to deny credible reports that she planted a bomb at a police station that killed a law enforcement officer. Shouldn’t Obama be asked about the reported involvement of his political associate in cold-blooded murder? This revelation is important because the Weather Underground terrorists have long peddled the line that their bombings didn’t kill anybody, except themselves. The book flap for Ayers’ book, Fugitive Days, insists that the organization carried out “strategic, bloodless bombings, including one inside the Pentagon.” This is a Big Lie. The Legal Link The ties between Dohrn and Barack and Michelle Obama may run deep. From 1984-1988, Dohrn worked at Sidley & Austin, a law firm, which is also where Obama and his wife Michelle worked and met. “For three years after law school, Michelle worked as an associate in the area of marketing and intellectual property at Chicago law firm Sidley and Austin, where she met Barack Obama,” the official Obama campaign website reports. But it says nothing about meeting or knowing Dohrn. Ayers had told the New York Times—ironically in its edition of Sept. 11, 2001—“I feel we didn’t do enough” in those days. It looks like Dohrn shares that view. Indeed, a witness who questioned Dohrn tells AIM the onetime fugitive from justice refused to deny she planted a bomb on the window ledge of a police station in San Francisco that killed a policeman. But she has never been held accountable for this murder. Newspaper accounts at the time put the number of people wounded at nine. Riddled with shrapnel, Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell died two days later at San Francisco General Hospital. A memorial was held for him in February of 2007. “Sergeant McDonnell caught the full force of the flying shrapnel, which consisted of heavy metal staples and lead bullets. As other officers tried rendering aid to the fallen sergeant, they could see that he sustained a severed neck artery wound and severe wounds to his eyes and neck,” the San Francisco Police Officers Association Journal reports. “Officers [Ron] Martin and [Al] Arnaud, who were standing several feet from the window ledge, were knocked to the ground and sustained injuries from the flying glass,” it says. The blast caused them hearing impairment and shock. One officer was knocked to the floor unconscious, while another “suffered multiple severe wounds on his face, cheek and legs from the flying fragments of the glass.” The original testimony about Dohrn’s involvement in this came during a hearing by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee on October 18, 1974. On that date, FBI undercover agent Larry Grathwohl testified at length on his penetration of the Weathermen and how he learned firsthand of its violent aims on America. Under questioning from the panel’s veteran counsel J.G. “Jay” Sourwine, Grathwohl testified that with the Weathermen, an offshoot of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), “it was no longer a question of changing the system from within. It was to destroy the system, completely destroy it, and that is what they said the first time I met them, and that is what they said the last time I was with them.” Grathwohl also testified about a specific bombing: “When he [Bill Ayers] returned, we had another meeting at which time—and this is the only time that any Weathermen told me about something that someone else had done—and Bill started off telling us about the need to raise the level of the struggle and for stronger leadership inside the Weathermen ‘focals’ [cells] and inside the Weatherman organization as a whole. And [what] he cited as one of the real problems was that someone like Bernardine Dohrn had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco, and he specifically named her as the person that committed that act.” Grathwohl added that Ayers “said that the bomb was placed on the window ledge and he described the kind of bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it.” He was asked, “Did he say who placed the bomb on the window ledge?” He replied, “Bernardine Dohrn.” Asked if Ayers said that he had personally witnessed Dohrn placing the bomb, Grathwohl responded, “Well, if he wasn’t there to see it, somebody who was there told him about it, because he stated it very emphatically.” This testimony completely obliterates the notion, perpetuated by the Chicago Tribune and other media, that the bombings only killed the bombers themselves. Such propaganda is designed to play down the serious nature of the terrorist crimes and make Obama’s relationship with Ayers and Dohrn more palatable. Ayers Praised Dohrn Grathwohl includes this conversation with Ayers in his 1976 book, Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen. The park police station bombing in San Francisco was “a success,” Ayers is quoted as saying, “but it’s a shame when someone like Bernardine Dohrn has to make all the plans, make the bomb, and then place it herself. She should have to do only the planning.” What a shame that Dohrn had to do all the dirty work. But it’s probably safe to assume that Ayers either helped her or knew about it in advance. Grathwohl reveals that Ayers himself knew how to make bombs and didn’t care about people being killed. At one point, he says, Ayers displayed a diagram of a bomb, with dynamite and a fuse. The plan was to bomb a police station but an objection was raised that it would also destroy a nearby restaurant. “We’ll blow out the Red Barn restaurant,” Grathwohl said. “Maybe even kill a few innocent customers—and most of them are black.” “We can’t protect all the innocent people in the world,” Ayers replied. “Some will get killed. Some of us will get killed. We have to accept that fact.” Grathwohl says the Weather Under-ground (WUO) also considered using kidnappings and assassinations in order to bring about their communist revolution in the U.S. Possible kidnapping targets were Vice President Spiro Agnew and presidential aide Henry Kissinger. The KU Appearance The Monday March 8, 1982 edition of The University Daily Kansan, the student newspaper of the University of Kansas, ran a story about the campus appearance the previous Friday of Bernadine Dohrn. She declared, “Those of us who participated in the [Vietnam] anti-war movement were not drastic enough.” Considering the testimony that she was responsible for planting the bomb in San Francisco on Feb. 16, 1970 that killed Police Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell, who caught the full force of the flying shrapnel, one wonders what would qualify as “drastic enough.” AIM has been in contact with a witness to the events of the day of Dohrn’s 1982 appearance on the KU campus. John B. Barrett, then a third semester law student at the university, showed up at the meeting where Dohrn was speaking against the war then in El Salvador. That was at a time when a Soviet-backed insurgency was out to take over that beleaguered country. President Reagan’s determination not to let the Soviets gain one square inch of territory on his watch was instrumental in putting the kibosh on that aggression. Reagan had a policy of supporting the government of El Salvador. As Barrett (now a practicing attorney in Goddard, Kansas) e-mailed this writer, “Using Larry Grathwohl’s testimony, and a pamphlet by ex-FBI agents, I asked Dohrn how she could condemn killing by the U.S. government when she had killed one police officer and injured others. Her response was, ‘Larry’s a pig.’ I asked about the incident at least two more times, and got the same response each time.” Through it all, as Barrett tells us, Dohrn’s two male companions tried to shout him down; Dohrn told them to let him speak. And then this: “DOHRN NEVER SAID THAT GRATHWOHL HAD LIED OR DENIED THAT SHE HAD PLANNED AND CARRIED OUT THE BOMBING THAT KILLED THE OFFICER IN SAN FRANCISCO [Caps in original e-mail].” During her appearance at KU, Dohrn also alleged that the U.S. government “is the main enemy of the people of the world” and that “Resorting to violence is painful and tragic, but with a slave/master situation, something has to be done.” The Manson Murders Not so coincidentally, members of the SDS such as Ayers and Dohrn were becoming members of the Weather Underground and engaging in numerous bombings and other violence as the case of Charles Manson and his “family” emerged in 1969. Manson had taken a group of young people, subjected them to heavy drug use, and ordered them to commit mass murder. On the Weather Underground and their drug use, Ayers writes in his own book, Fugitive Days, “Marijuana was available everywhere—every party, every gathering, every meeting.” Dohrn went further, praising the psychopath Manson as a true “revolutionary,” adding, “First they killed those pigs [i.e., the victims, including a pregnant movie actress], then they ate dinner in the same room with them. Then they even shoved a fork into one’s stomach. Wild.” In her “Declaration of a State of War,” Dohrn said, “We fight in many ways. Dope is one of our weapons. The laws against marijuana mean that millions of us are outlaws long before we actually split. Guns and grass are united in the youth underground.” The pro-Manson comments were delivered by Dohrn at a national SDS “War Council” in December of 1969. Those in attendance included SDS leader Mark Rudd, who also gave a speech. Rudd was a subject of an April 27, 2008, sympathetic article in the Washington Post about a “Columbia 68” “reunion” of SDS members and student radicals who had taken over campus buildings. Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia and a board member of the Post, delivered a welcoming address and participated in a panel discussion. The Post article about the event neglected to mention that Rudd had been to Communist Cuba before he led the riots and the takeover of Columbia University. Rudd wrote an SDS pamphlet, titled simply Columbia, which declared that during the “occupation” of Columbia University, “It was no accident that we hung up pictures of Karl Marx and Malcom X and Che Guevara and flew red flags from the tops of two buildings.” The pamphlet concluded with a quotation from Communist Chinese mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung, “Dare to struggle, dare to win.” The Dohrn-Soros Connection Dohrn is now a Clinical Associate Professor in the Bluhm Legal Clinic at Northwestern School of Law and an adjunct faculty member of the University of Illinois/Chicago in the Department of Criminal Justice. Her curriculum vitae shows participation in several American Bar Association (ABA) events and even a Department of Justice conference. She was involved in a “Peace Studies Program” at Colgate University and served on the board of the “Peace Museum” in Chicago, an entity currently funded by the Playboy Foundation. Most interesting, however, are her appearances at events sponsored by the Open Society Institute (OSI) of billionaire leftist George Soros. The Baltimore, Maryland branch of the OSI on May 12, 2004, hosted Dohrn at a forum on criminal justice issues and discipline in schools. In 1999, Dohrn participated in an OSI event at New York University on “families in a free society,” with a focus on welfare reform and child welfare. (Another WUO member, Linda Evans, was given a Soros grant to “increase civic participation of former prisoners.”) An objective observer might conclude that Ayers, Dohrn and their comrades are now dedicated to creating a new student and youth movement, like the one they participated in which eventually developed into a full-blown terrorist organization that killed our fellow citizens and tried to eliminate the “Thin Blue Line” of police separating us from the criminals. In this new crusade, they not only have an inspiring leader, Barack Obama, who attracts young people with his promise of “change,” but a moneybags named Soros, who has funded causes such as rights for convicted felons and legalization of dope. “I have very high regard for Hillary Clinton, but I think Obama has the charisma and the vision to radically reorient America in the world,” Soros told Judy Woodruff of Bloomberg Television. “I think that he has shown to be a really unusual person.” Where’s The Justice? So how do communist-backed terror bombers escape justice for their crimes and end up introducing Barack Obama to the wider world of American politics? To answer that, one must recall the post-Watergate anti-intelligence culture that began in the Ford years and accelerated in the Carter administration, in which concern over a huge slave empire’s drive for world domination was deemed “an inordinate fear of communism,” to quote Jimmy Carter. Roy M. Cohn, best known as chief counsel to the old McCarthy committee, captured the tenor of the times: “During the 1970s, the American internal security and counter-intelligence community [including congressional committees investigating communism] was virtually destroyed….by a sensation-seeking national media which utilized selective “leaks” and disclosures in order to present a bizarre, distorted picture of the purpose and operations of the intelligence, counter-intelligence and internal security agencies.” In those years, the FBI’s hands were tied by such prohibitions as being forbidden to clip news stories of subversive activities or building a file on individual subversives and terrorists. Meanwhile, the anti-intelligence lobby was going full tilt. Groups such as the communist-front National Lawyers Guild, and the pro-Marxist Institute for Policy Studies worked openly with the American Civil Liberties Union. The Carter Justice Department prosecuted FBI agents Mark Felt (later revealed as “Deep Throat” in the Watergate case) and Edward S. Miller who were in pursuit of radicals in the Weather Underground (the renamed Weathermen) who had planted bombs not only in San Francisco but in New York, Los Angeles and in Washington at the U.S. Capitol and other federal buildings. It was left to President Reagan to pardon the agents. He declared: “During their long careers, Mark Felt and Edward Miller served the Federal Bureau of Investigation and our nation with great distinction. To punish them further—after 3 years of criminal prosecution proceedings— would not serve the ends of justice. “Their convictions in the U.S. District Court, on appeal at the time I signed the pardons, grew out of their good-faith belief that their actions were necessary to preserve the security interests of our country. The record demonstrates that they acted not with criminal intent, but in the belief that they had grants of authority reaching to the highest levels of government. “America was at war in 1972, and Messrs. Felt and Miller followed procedures they believed essential to keep the Director of the FBI, the Attorney General, and the President of the United States advised of the activities of hostile foreign powers and their collaborators in this country...” One argument used by the defendants (and not contradicted) was that the Weather Underground was taking orders and direction from Castro’s Cuba. The Cuban Connection Herbert Romerstein, former investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the House Internal Security Committee, has said that “What is significant today are the neo-communists—many of them are what we call red diaper babies and they came out of communist families. But they were disappointed in the Soviet Union back in the 1960’s and 1970’s and they were disappointed that the American Communist Party was so weak. So, they said they were communists and they were better communists than the American Communist Party. I think a better term for people like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are neo-communists. They were not party members, but they were fighting on behalf of the countries that the Soviet Union controlled or created.” Romerstein noted that “A group of the Weathermen went down to Cuba in the so-called Venceremos Brigade, and some of them received training in terrorist activities. “One of their instructors was named Julian Torres-Rizo. Rizo was an officer of the Cuban DGI, the intelligence service. He was assigned to work with the young Americans who were coming down ostensibly to cut sugar cane. They were really coming down for training. And we have one of Rizo’s speeches in which he says, ‘You come from a society that must be destroyed. It’s your job to destroy your society.’ “Well, Bernardine Dohrn and her cronies published Rizo’s speech and I have the copy that they published so we know what he did and what they said. And Rizo later became the Cuban Ambassador to Grenada at the time of Maurice Bishop and he was still the Cuban Ambassador when Bishop was murdered by his own comrades and finally had to leave and go back to Cuba where he became a member of the central committee of the Cuban Communist Party. “He’s a very significant communist apparatchik and he was a tremendous influence on the Weather Underground…he helped the terrorists that were fighting against us at that time.”"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,853 #45 October 16, 2008 Posting reams of guilt-by-association smears doesn't help your guy one iota. His association with and support of G.W. Bush's wars and economic policies is what is doing him in. McCain has clearly realized that smearing Obama is backfiring, and right now his efforts are targeted at attempting to dissociate himself from Bush ("I am not George Bush"). It must be very frustrating for you to have to support a candidate whom your own party considered inferior to George W. Bush in 2000.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #46 October 16, 2008 Would you explain what you think the significance of this line drawing in your sig line is? For example, I can remove Farrakhan and replace that box with Sec of State Condoleeza Rice in order to show a connection to Libya's Q'addafi. Which is a more contextually accurate, more timely, &/or a more significant connection, particularly w/r/t US foreign policy? Where is the box showing a connection to Milton Friedman? Sen Obama taught at the same University as Friedman. What kind of selection bias do the choices show? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #47 October 16, 2008 It's amusing how you seem to be unable to address the issue of Obama and the character of the people with whom he associates. It is not one person or one instance; rather, it is long term relationships with some very bad actors...homegrown terrorists - bombers and murderers - unrepentant and stating that they wish they had done more. I guess you have difficulty in refuting the facts so you try to deflect attention from Obama and the matter at hand."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,853 #48 October 16, 2008 Quote It's amusing how you seem to be unable to address the issue of Obama and the character of the people with whom he associates. It is not one person or one instance; rather, it is long term relationships with some very bad actors...homegrown terrorists - bombers and murderers - unrepentant and stating that they wish they had done more. I guess you have difficulty in refuting the facts so you try to deflect attention from Obama and the matter at hand. YOU are the person thrashing around in panic, desparately trying to find some smear that will stick. Even McCain has realized that tack isn't working. It's funny watching you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #49 October 16, 2008 QuoteWall Street Journal on Ayers: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122402888900234543.html?mod=googlenews_wsj this paragragh as i see it speaks volumes about why i don't want Obama elected. The McCain campaign has made much of its leader's honor and bravery, but now it has chosen to mount its greatest attack against a man who poses no conceivable threat to the country, who has nothing to do with this year's issues, and who cannot or will not defend himself. Apparently this makes him an irresistible target a man that poses no threat? he is in the one place that poses the greatest threat to our society. he is shaping the minds of young people with his views. the comunists made their children learn that America was bad and evil. to this day the muslims do the same. spreading fear and hate is something that lasts for long after the teacher is dead and may run for generations. the teachings and views of Ayers will last long after he is dead and his name is forgotten. people genrally don't change much over their life, they do however adjust the way they do things and Ayers has accomplished this by understanding that patience and time are the best way to spread his hate and fear and make it last and influence for a long time. Ayers' views haven't changed in 40 years as was made evident by his 2001 interview we he said "we didn't do enough". Now he has a possible freind going to become the president, is this what we want for America? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mfnren 2 #50 October 16, 2008 "the comunists made their children learn that America was bad and evil. to this day the muslims do the same." "the Capitalists made their children learn that Russia was bad and evil. to this day the Christians do the same to the muslims." seems strangely familiar... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites