The "mainstream" media and other liberals would like you to believe talking about a U.S. Senator and wannabe president who associates with a domestic terrorist is "fear mongering."
They'd like you to believe that it just doesn't matter that Barack Obama seems to be surrounded by people who loathe the United States and all we stand for.
Do you associate with people who loathe the the things you love?
Sleep at your peril. It is of the utmost importance.
Featured Article
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Barack Obama: Guilt by Participation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I like how you dismiss the fear mongering argument but then write "Sleep at your peril." That was very funny.
Look, most of the people who don't like all this Ayers talk do think talking about a politicians associations is fair game. But you can go too far with it. Some people feel the McCain campaign has been going too far with their Ayers speculation. Sometimes I think the McCain campaign is trying to create the image in American's minds that Obama was helping the Weather Underground build bombs when he was eight. Some Republicans seem to be implying that Obama is a terrorist. That is not only wrong but it's unAmerican.
Have you seen some of the comments McCain has gotten recently at his rallies? McCain seems to have made the Republican base scared of Obama and in this post-9/11 world a lot of them believe he's a Muslim terrorist.
It's fine to talk about what you don't like about a candidate and what parts of their platform you disagree with, but this character assassination is really bad for this country. After this last week, I'm worried that we're headed down a bad path with all this negativity.
America deserves better.
Tom, you show your lack of grasp of the issues when you thought my statement was funny.
Is it "fear mongering" to warn people to get out of a burning building? Is it "fear mongering" to warn someone that there's a killer on the loose? Is it "fear mongering" to warn someone away from a doctor who does a lousy job of treating his patients? To ignore such warnings is to place yourself in peril.
It is not fear mongering to warn people that Barack Obama has surrounded himself with people who have a visceral hate and loathing for the United States. I'll ask again: Do you associate with people who loathe the the things you love?
I don't think people like myself are trying to get others to believe Obama was building bombs with Ayers when he was 8. That is quite unnecessary; the fact that Obama chose to associate with such an unrepentant terrorist who still has strongly anti-American sentiments--when Obama was a grown man--is quite sufficient to set off alarm bells for any reasonable person.
America does indeed deserve better; we deserve better than a prospective president who hangs out and works with terrorists who bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and many other goverment buildings--one who still hates and loathes his country and everything that makes it great. We deserve a president better than one who is surrounded by people who hate America and everything we stand for, and can find no reason to be proud of this wonderful nation.
And pointing out the truth of that is not character assassination, any more than is pointing out the character deficiencies of any official who wants to lead this nation.
Bob, did you not like the Youtube video I posted earlier? That's ok, I'll leave it out this time.
After I posted that one, I found an interesting video about Sarah Palin's personal ties to the Alaska Independence Party - you know, the one that calls for the state's secession from the United States? The one that has been documented as saying that the way to achieve Alaska's autonomy is to get a secessionist on the Republican ticket? The one whose leader said that the fires of hell are glaciers compared to his hatred for America? If that's not a strongly anti-American sentiment, I don't know what is.
While you write about how Obama is "surrounded" by people who hate our country, here's clear evidence that a potential vice president has been known to associate with not just a few, but an ENTIRE organization of people who want Alaska to be its own country! I take it that doesn't bother you?
And as for whether it's wrong to associate with people who loathe the things that you love, part of Christ's mission on earth was to associate with people who not only did things he disapproved of, but people who embraced the very thing he openly hated: sin. By your logic, Christ must have loved sin because he chose to be friends with unrepentant sinners.
You associate with unrepentant homosexuals (and from what you claim, call many of them your friends), so does that mean you hate traditional marriage? You associate with atheists, so does that mean you hate Christianity? You associate with people who disagree with the war on terror, so does that mean you hate America and want our enemies to kill us? You associate with liberals, so does that mean you hate yourself?
This "guilt by association" nonsense is getting beyond ridiculous. How about we focus on the issues that will still have significance after Election Day?
If nothing else, it must be quite easy to fool Barack Obama. Look at all the mentors in his orbit that have been thrown under the proverbial campaign bus (hope those tires were properly inflated!). In his book, in his own words, he stated "I chose my friends very carefully". If these are the friends he carefully chooses, one must reasonably question his judgement, his purpose, and his veracity. If indeed he was innocently hoodwinked by all these subversive influences, he lacks the insight and maturity to lead this nation. If he associated with these people by design, he constitutes a clear and present danger to our country. Anyone who would argue otherwise is whistling past the graveyard, seeking to assure themselves it's no big deal.
Anonymous, I could tell that your judgment is lacking even before I reached your third paragraph, but you clinched it there.
Are you aware that Sarah Palin was never a member of the AIP? Are you aware that her husband was never more than a peripheral member--something that many average Alaskans have also been--and has not been a member of that party for some time?
Has that organization ever, oh, say, bombed the U.S Capitol? Has the AIP ever, say, bombed the Pentagon? Has that organization ever, say, bombed any other government building? Has that organization ever stated a deep-seated loathing for capitalism and called for capitalism to be abolished by revolution?
Reaching your third paragraph, you really need to go back and read your Bible with a greater mind to understanding.
To talk with someone involved with sin and evil is one thing, with a mind to convince them of the error of their ways and help them find and accept the truth. Did you ever see Christ do any different? Did you ever see Christ whitewash or ignore sin...or did you see him associate with those who were ready for change, and with those he could reach out to and bring life to them.
You will find, however, that he didn't spend his time around those who were unrepentant (like, say, Bill Ayers). In fact, he had some harsh things to say to and about those who refuse to repent. And for those (like, say, Obama himself) who call themselves Christians, yet embrace evil, Jesus specifically commanded his followers to not associate with such people--not to even eat with them (1 Corinthians 5:11).
And moving on to your fourth paragraph, you make assumptions here that, not only are they not accurate, but are transparently intended to attempt to deflect from a moral stance. As I said above, to be sociable with someone and to speak to them with an intent to help them find and embrace truth is significantly different than working with them, associating closely with them, and maintaining a relationship with them that is not heavily influenced by a desire to see them find the truth. You will find those elements in the associations I have and have had with homosexuals...but I challenge you to find a single element of those in Obama's relationships with people like Bill Ayers or his racist pastor Jeremiah Wright.
Finally, as I have said exhaustively before, and will continue to say, Obama's nonjudgmental associations with terrorists and others who absolutely hate America is not nonsense; it is of the utmost relevance.
I'll ask again: Do you associate with people who loathe the the things you love?
I'll ask again: should we elect as president a man who is surrounded by people who loath America and all it's noble ideals?
You need to chill out, Bob. Obama served on an education board with Ayers. If I was joining a board about an issue I was interested in, I don't think I would run background checks on everyone else on that board before becoming a member. That was even back in the 90's before Google search and Wikipedia were widely available. Would Obama have even known who Ayers was before meeting him? I had never heard of him before Hillary brought it up during her campaign.
Oh and I do have friends who loathe something I love. I love country music and all my friends loathe it. But we agree on a lot of other issues so we don't let that one issue ruin out friendships. Though they do make fun of country music a little too much because they can be jerks.
You need to wake up, Tom. You need to quit making excuses for evil, and quit making excuses for those who are themselves excusing evil.
You wouldn't need to run a background check to know about Ayers background. It is well established that Ayers' reputation as an anti-American radical and terrorist bomber were well known in the Chicago area.
Between being hired to work on the board of Ayers' organization, the Annenberg Challenge, and working on the Wood Fund together, and Ayers helping launch Obama's political career with a meet-and-greet in Ayers' home, Obama had more than ample opportunity to know about Ayers.
And don't make light of the matter by comparing our nation, our nation's ideals and our nation's institutions to country music. I like country music, but it doesn't even begin to compare to the importance of things like freedom, justice, our American heritage, our system of government, our national security, and all the things Ayers and his kind loathe so greatly they would cheer to see destroyed.
You seriously need to examine your heart, Tom. You have some serious hostility toward truth, yourself.
Ayers just recieved an award from a Socialist 'dictator' Hugo Chavez for his work in education. Ayers told Chavez,“We share the belief that education is the motor force of revolution.”
The Problem Obama has with all of these connections is this is his RESUME. They aren't people he bumped into, they ARE Barack Obama.
Stop reading "Fight the Smears" and start looking into this stuff for yourself. Think!
Would a education board hire people who are against what they wanted to promote!?
from Factcheck.org:
"In a Web ad and in repeated attacks from the stump, McCain describes the two as associates, and Palin claims they "pal around" together. But so far as is known, their relationship was never very close. An Obama spokesman says they last saw each other in a chance encounter on the street more than a year ago."
"The education project described in the Web ad, far from being "radical," had the support of the Republican governor and was run by a board that included prominent local leaders, including one Republican who has donated $1,500 to McCain's campaign this year."
So were the Republicans on that board "palling around with terrorists"? This story is a desperate act to try and turn our attention away from the economy. McCain clearly knows he's losing, and he's got to do something to try and claw back into the race.
FactCheck is itself in error. FactCheck has Leftist connections and has--like many "objective" organizations--compromised its integrity.
Obama and Ayers worked together on the board of the Annenberg Challenge and the Woods fund. Further, Ayers threw a meet-and-greet at his home to help launch Obama's political career. They were clearly closely associated. No reasonable person would believe that someone who worked and associated this closely with Ayers would have no knowledge of Ayers' past, his lack of repentance for that past, and his current loathing for America.
Anyone who would associate with an unrepentant terrorist like Ayers either has a serious judgment problem, or doesn't have a problem with terrorists who hate America, or both.
And someone who fits that bill should not under any circumstances preside over the United States.
John McCain, who served in the same committees as unrepentant racists Strom Thrumond and Jessie Helms, is a racist and a segregationist.
Strom Thurmond supported racial segregation with the longest filibuster ever conducted by a single Senator, speaking for 24 hours and 18 minutes in an attempt to stop the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
Helms called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "the single most dangerous piece of legislation ever". He reminded voters that he tried to stop the Senate from approving Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
These are people who John McCain associated with since coming to Washington. He served on committees with them, he attended parties with them. No one could associate with these two men for so long without it influencing them. Perhaps this is why McCain voted against making MLK day a holiday. John McCain has close ties with both of these men, so he is therefore a racist and a segregationist.
See how stupid this logic is? I don't think for a minute that McCain is a racist or segregationist because he associated with Thurmond and Helms. And I don't think that Obama is a terrorist because he served on an education board with a 1960's radical.
And if you still think Obama is friends with terrorists, then McCain is receiving money from those who are friends with terrorists: the Annenbergs, who started the board Obama and Ayers were on. Is McCain receiving money from terrorist sympathizers?
Braden, under your twisted logic, everyone who ever served in the in the Senate with Helms and Thurmond are guilty. I think any reasonable person can tell the difference between a small local organization--where someone has other opportunities to work to promote a cause--and the totally unique U.S. Senate which is the only body of it's kind. I think any reasonable person would also see the difference that the U.S. Senate is a body comprised of representatives elected by the people of their state, not a board hand-picked and hired by a limited number of people already involved in the project. But then, you've seldom proven reasonable, Braden.
If a domestic terrorist like, say, Timothy McVeigh, got off on a technicality and then approached you to work on the board of his organization, would you?
If said domestic terrorist said they wanted to throw a meet-and-greet at their house to help you get a start in politics, would you go?
As an interesting side note, you might find it interesting to note that both Thurmond and Helms were Democrats during the racist activity you mentioned. As was the former Senate Majority (and current Senate member) Robert Byrd, who was in the KKK and rose to the rank of Kleagle--a recruiter. Funny how there have been so many racists in the Democrat Party.
"Braden, under your twisted logic, everyone who ever served in the in the Senate with Helms and Thurmond are guilty."
Right, and by your logic anyone who has ever known Bill Ayers is a terrorist.
"If a domestic terrorist like, say, Timothy McVeigh, got off on a technicality and then approached you to work on the board of his organization, would you?"
If it was 40 years after the fact and he was a professor at a university and a respected member of the community, I would at least consider it.
"Funny how there have been so many racists in the Democrat Party."
And it's funny how they all became Republicans following the civil rights movement.
As I've said before, Ayers' radical and terrorist past was well known in the Chicago community.
But apparently from your comment, you're like Obama, and the fact that he doesn't regret it and wishes he'd done more doesn't matter.
And that's the problem: someone who would overlook that kind of attitude has no business running America.
Bob, why didn't Sarah Palin condemn or even acknowledge Joe Vogler's undeniably anti-American statements when she spoke at the AIP convention earlier this year? Doesn't that worry you? To quote your own words, "someone who would overlook that kind of attitude has no business running America."
And when she told the AIP to "keep up the good work," what makes you think she wasn't referring to the party's self-proclaimed goal of secession?
While we're at it, have you heard the violent comments Republicans are making at McCain's stump speeches? When someone shouts that Obama is a terrorist, shouldn't McCain immediately say that comments like that are inappropriate? It's like you said, someone who would overlook that kind of attitude has no business running America.
Anonymous 7:43, To the best of my knowledge, neither Vogler nor the AIP has bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Penatagon, police stations, post offices, or any other government buildings...unlike Barack Obama's associate Bill Ayers.
To the best of my knowledge, neither Vogler nor the AIP has called for revolution to overthrow the United States or capitalism...unlike Barack Obama's associate Bill Ayers.
The AIP are certainly a strong-willed bunch, with many of its members desiring secession from the Union. But given how far our government has strayed from it's roots and from it's very highest law (the Constitution is trampled and ignored on a daily basis by all three branches in Washington on a daily basis), it's not surprising that good people might entertain the notion of breaking free from the corruption and lawlessness they see in D.C.
Me, I say we fight to return our country to it's foundational and constitutional roots and greatness. But Alaska is our next to youngest state, so the connecting roots to the country's heritage may not run quite as deep for some.
However, I think it's safe to say that the bulk of AIP members affiliate with the party because of many of the ideological beliefs and philosophies they also hold, such as: limited government, privatization where feasible, homeschooling, gun rights and individual freedom. These are all good and noble ideals and pursuits, ones where most everyday Americans would agree with the AIP. Given Palin's obvious heart-felt patriotism, I think it's pretty safe to assume it was these values to which she referred when she told them "keep up the good work."
Obama, meanwhile, has himself (perhaps in unguarded moments) expressed disdain for America, and a desire to transform America into what it has never been, was never intended to be, and by the Constitution should never be. The man has even been reluctant to wear a flag pin on his lapel, for Pete's sake--such a relatively insignificant gesture (insignificant, that is, unless one has a strong reluctance to do so; then the question becomes: "Why?")
He is also surrounded by people who loathe and hate the United States. His pastor might as well be some African or Middle Eastern hate mongerer railing against the evil Satan of the United States; which, incidentally, might not be surprising, since Jeremiah Wright has gone to meet with many of these same America-haters.
Obama's own wife has stated on more than one occasion that only recently--because of her husband's nomination--has she found cause to be proud of America: "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm proud of my country." Me, I was proud of my country countless times before I even WAS an adult...and the times I've been proud of my country since becoming an adult have been many times more even than when I was a child. And I think this is the case with most Americans.
And Obama's associate, the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers...well...we've been over that one recently, so I won't go into that again.
Why does Barack Obama have a hard time articulating love for this country he wants to lead? Why is Barack Obama so surrounded by people who absolutely loathe this country that he wants to lead?
Why would we vote for someone who is so surrounded by people who loathe this country?
Anonymous 10:57, I'm not altogether sure these isolated incidents of shouters aren't Obama plants to make the evil conservatives look bad.
And from what I understand, McCain has been condemning these statements.
Even if McCain were tolerating it (which he isn't), here's something to consider. What is worse to overlook: someone who would tell a lie about another person, or someone who would bomb the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and several other government buildings?
So what you're saying is that Palin shouldn't condemn anti-American remarks unless the people who make them threaten to blow up a building?
Read it again; is that what I said?
No I'm ASKING you. The AIP hasn't threatened to destroy anything, so does that excuse Palin from having to condemn statements like "I have no use for America and her damned institutions"?
Does she need to? Vogler was dead before the Palins ever became associated with the AIP, and the party has moderated significantly since Vogler's founding days. They're now somewhat like the Constitution Party and believe in great things like gun rights and limited government.
Meanwhile, Ayers says he has not the slightest regret for his terrorist acts--and wishes he'd done more. He continues--even earlier this year--to bash the United States and capitalism and calls for revolution. This in addition to his advocacy of radical promotion of homosexuality in the education system.
I think most reasonable people understand that bombing the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, police stations and post offices are in a different league.
But then, you know this too. I guess you have to find some way to live with yourself for supporting least fit man ever to run for the presidency (and that's saying a lot with Bill Clinton in the past).
Post a Comment