The Not Ready for Prime Time President

[BodybyFisher]

September 03, 2009

The Not Ready for Prime Time President

By Bruce Walker

Pundits, including perceptive conservative opponents like Charles Krauthammer, have noted the consummate political skill of Barack Obama. There is not much doubt that Obama was able to wage a very effective campaign for the Democrat nomination and then for the presidency in the general election.

Bill Clinton was a masterful campaigner too (I had the opportunity to watch some of that first hand.) Ronald Reagan, because in part of his long career in Hollywood, could give "The Speech" a thousand times and each time it was electrifying. The word "charisma" entered our popular political language to describe John Kennedy, whose beautiful wife and boyish good looks created the myth of Camelot. Franklin Roosevelt had the same gift for making people feeling comfortable and winning elections.

But there is a huge difference between Obama, on the one hand, those other presidents on the other hand - and the difference transcends ideology. FDR, Clinton, and Obama had the same Leftist agenda. JFK was what today would be called a moderate, and the Gipper, of course, was overtly conservative. But JFK, FDR, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton had the ability to govern once they had won their elections.

FDR, by the time he became president, he had served as Secretary of the Navy under Woodrow Wilson, Governor of New York, and Vice Presidential Candidate of his party in 1928. Forget the rightness or the wrongness of his policies: Franklin Roosevelt understood governance.

John Kennedy had been a war hero, a member of Congress, and the real author of some important books (like Why England Slept, in which JFK describes the dangers of appeasing evil.) The Roosevelt and Kennedy clans also grew up with a sense of aristocratic responsibility and a backdoors familiarity with power which may not have been moral, but certainly was valuable.

Ronald Reagan, in addition to being a movie star, a union president, and an ambassador for General Electric, served eight years as Governor of California and was twice an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican nomination before finally winning the nomination in 1980.

Even Bill Clinton had been a congressional candidate, then attorney general of Arkansas, then for many years governor of Arkansas before he ran for president. Clinton served a term as Chair of the National Governors Association. He was a leading member of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group considered, wrongly, to be moderate but which was influential.

Obama, while possessing many of the campaigning gifts of these presidents, has shown no ability to govern at all. This is a very dangerous situation for our nation. Our leader is a man whose ignorance, in many areas of history and policy, is simply appalling. He is rather like the "President in the Plastic Bubble." Obama's entire life has been insulated from any sense of reality of the nation he governs.

When a black Marxist professor obviously blinded by intense racial rage has to be taken to a police station by a police officer nursed in all the nuances of political correctness, Obama cannot see his friend as the wailing bigot and the white policemen as the reasonable figure. At best, Obama calls it a moral draw.

When millions of Americans spontaneously protest at Tea Parties and Town Meetings proposals for massive federal changes, Obama instructs his satrapies in government, the Democratic Party, and the media that the voters are simply uninformed. When citizens cite specific sections of federal bills, how serious does Obama expect to be taken?

When polls show his support dropping steadily as well as support for his specific policies and his party, Obama seems to think that his cronies and he have simply not repeated the same unbelievable statements often, clearly, or loudly enough. It is as if John Edwards had taken the position, when his infidelity was exposed, that he simply needed to get in front of the television camera as often as possible repeating his lies as persuasively as he could.

His pals from Chicago seem unable to help him. His partisan handlers fancy that they can simply ram whatever they want. Men like Axelrod and Emmanuel seem to think that it should be simple to push radical Leftist programs through a nation in which conservatives outnumber liberals in virtually all of the fifty states. Obama and his clique appear certain that in a modern culture in which celebrity means everything to many, that just remaining on the cover of glamour magazines will assure political support -- when actually the immature voter is the most feckless and unreliable source of muscle around.

President Obama seemingly has no clue about what he is doing, and, increasingly, it shows. What will happen when things start to go sour in Afghanistan? Our Commander-in-Chief simply will not be able to blame President Bush. After Obama has effectively destroyed the CIA, what will he do when terrorists strike? War is a nasty business in which lawyers should have little role. Has Obama noticed that Islamic terrorists are now threatening him? Does he understand that these vicious men are still threatening America?

Looking smooth on television and wowing those fawning socialites and film directors who want to be wowed brings a sort of ephemeral "popularity," but great nations are not governed on such spun sugar. Winning elections and running superpowers are very different tasks. Now, we have a president who is every second still just a candidate. As the world grows more dangerous by the day, we are "led" by the Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time-President.

Bruce Walker is the author of two books: Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie, and his recently published book, The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/the...ime_time_p.html at September 04, 2009 - 12:55:19 PM EDT

[Texas Jim]

Excellent article.

I love the line....."Not Ready For Prime Time."

That is a perfect description of the fool we have as president.

(Yes...I spelled President in his case, in lowercase, intentionally) .)

[WarrenJ]

September 03, 2009

The Not Ready for Prime Time President

By Bruce Walker

But there is a huge difference between Obama, on the one hand, those other presidents on the other hand - and the difference transcends ideology. FDR, Clinton, and Obama had the same Leftist agenda. JFK was what today would be called a moderate, and the Gipper, of course, was overtly conservative. But JFK, FDR, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton had the ability to govern once they had won their elections.

,

In my view Obama (whose name my spellcheeker doesn't recognize) is akin to a Democratic version of Newt Gingrich; he's an "idea" man. A talker, not a doer.

After years of proclaiming the need for health care reform, Obama showed up without a plan. He simply said to Prince Harry and Princess Pelosi, "you do it, and I'll approve it."

I don't view this sort of person as a "Leader."

Regards,

Warren

[gregj1006]

September 03, 2009

The Not Ready for Prime Time President

By Bruce Walker

But there is a huge difference between Obama, on the one hand, those other presidents on the other hand - and the difference transcends ideology. FDR, Clinton, and Obama had the same Leftist agenda. JFK was what today would be called a moderate, and the Gipper, of course, was overtly conservative. But JFK, FDR, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton had the ability to govern once they had won their elections.

,

In my view Obama (whose name my spellcheeker doesn't recognize) is akin to a Democratic version of Newt Gingrich; he's an "idea" man. A talker, not a doer.

After years of proclaiming the need for health care reform, Obama showed up without a plan. He simply said to Prince Harry and Princess Pelosi, "you do it, and I'll approve it."

I don't view this sort of person as a "Leader."

Regards,

Warren

President Obama won the election for President because he was elected by majority vote, this country has been screwed up for years by his predecessors. I would like to see what some of his non-supporters would handle the situation of running a country that has already been plundered and abused. Could it be that you "good ole boys" don't want to accept the FACT we have a African-American PRESIDENT? In my opinion there is no way on GOD'S green earth that he could do any more damage than has been done. It is 2009, not 1809. Grow up and accept you/we have a black PRESIDENT.

[BodybyFisher]

September 03, 2009

The Not Ready for Prime Time President

By Bruce Walker

But there is a huge difference between Obama, on the one hand, those other presidents on the other hand - and the difference transcends ideology. FDR, Clinton, and Obama had the same Leftist agenda. JFK was what today would be called a moderate, and the Gipper, of course, was overtly conservative. But JFK, FDR, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton had the ability to govern once they had won their elections.

,

In my view Obama (whose name my spellcheeker doesn't recognize) is akin to a Democratic version of Newt Gingrich; he's an "idea" man. A talker, not a doer.

After years of proclaiming the need for health care reform, Obama showed up without a plan. He simply said to Prince Harry and Princess Pelosi, "you do it, and I'll approve it."

I don't view this sort of person as a "Leader."

Regards,

Warren

President Obama won the election for President because he was elected by majority vote, this country has been screwed up for years by his predecessors. I would like to see what some of his non-supporters would handle the situation of running a country that has already been plundered and abused. Could it be that you "good ole boys" don't want to accept the FACT we have a African-American PRESIDENT? In my opinion there is no way on GOD'S green earth that he could do any more damage than has been done. It is 2009, not 1809. Grow up and accept you/we have a black PRESIDENT.

Oh god (intentionally lower case g). My initial impression was to delete your post because of the racial garbage you are spewing. Sir, and I use that term loosely, this has NOTHING to do with race, NOTHING... NADA, ZILCH... he is actually a puppet run by the liberal left of his party, he left the health care bill up to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who are MORE right than HIM.

He is the MOST left senator/president and most RADICAL president, this country has ever had again, NOTHING to do with RACE, that is fact..!!

Its you on the LEFT that continue to raise RACE, you can not and DO not look at facts because you FALL APART with facts and scrutiny, you cry race without looking beyond that

Here is a very good article for you too look over to get EDUCATED about your wonderful president and you will realize that this is NOT NOT about race, see this:

Obama, the Mortal

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, September 4, 2009

What happened to President Obama? His wax wings having melted, he is the man who fell to earth. What happened to bring his popularity down further than that of any new president in polling history save Gerald Ford (post-Nixon pardon)?

The conventional wisdom is that Obama made a tactical mistake by farming out his agenda to Congress and allowing himself to be pulled left by the doctrinaire liberals of the Democratic congressional leadership. But the idea of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pulling Obama left is quite ridiculous. Where do you think he came from, this friend of Chávista ex-terrorist William Ayers, of PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi, of racialist inciter Jeremiah Wright?

But forget the character witnesses. Just look at Obama's behavior as president, beginning with his first address to Congress. Unbidden, unforced and unpushed by the congressional leadership, Obama gave his most deeply felt vision of America, delivering the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president. In American politics, you can't get more left than that speech and still be on the playing field.

In a center-right country, that was problem enough. Obama then compounded it by vastly misreading his mandate. He assumed it was personal. This, after winning by a mere seven points in a year of true economic catastrophe, of an extraordinarily unpopular Republican incumbent, and of a politically weak and unsteady opponent. Nonetheless, Obama imagined that, as Fouad Ajami so brilliantly observed, he had won the kind of banana-republic plebiscite that grants caudillo-like authority to remake everything in one's own image.

Accordingly, Obama unveiled his plans for a grand makeover of the American system, animating that vision by enacting measure after measure that greatly enlarged state power, government spending and national debt. Not surprisingly, these measures engendered powerful popular skepticism that burst into tea-party town-hall resistance.

Obama's reaction to that resistance made things worse. Obama fancies himself tribune of the people, spokesman for the grass roots, harbinger of a new kind of politics from below that would upset the established lobbyist special-interest order of Washington. Yet faced with protests from a real grass-roots movement, his party and his supporters called it a mob -- misinformed, misled, irrational, angry, unhinged, bordering on racist. All this while the administration was cutting backroom deals with every manner of special interest -- from drug companies to auto unions to doctors -- in which favors worth billions were quietly and opaquely exchanged.

"Get out of the way" and "don't do a lot of talking," the great bipartisan scolded opponents whom he blamed for creating the "mess" from which he is merely trying to save us. If only they could see. So with boundless confidence in his own persuasiveness, Obama undertook a summer campaign to enlighten the masses by addressing substantive objections to his reforms.

Things got worse still. With answers so slippery and implausible and, well, fishy, he began jeopardizing the most fundamental asset of any new president -- trust. You can't say that the system is totally broken and in need of radical reconstruction, but nothing will change for you; that Medicare is bankrupting the country, but $500 billion in cuts will have no effect on care; that you will expand coverage while reducing deficits -- and not inspire incredulity and mistrust. When ordinary citizens understand they are being played for fools, they bristle.

After a disastrous summer -- mistaking his mandate, believing his press, centralizing power, governing left, disdaining citizens for (of all things) organizing -- Obama is in trouble.

Let's be clear: This is a fall, not a collapse. He's not been repudiated or even defeated. He will likely regroup and pass some version of health insurance reform that will restore some of his clout and popularity.

But what has occurred -- irreversibly -- is this: He's become ordinary. The spell is broken. The charismatic conjurer of 2008 has shed his magic. He's regressed to the mean, tellingly expressed in poll numbers hovering at 50 percent.

For a man who only recently bred a cult, ordinariness is a great burden, and for his acolytes, a crushing disappointment. Obama has become a politician like others. And like other flailing presidents, he will try to salvage a cherished reform -- and his own standing -- with yet another prime-time speech.

But for the first time since election night in Grant Park, he will appear in the most unfamiliar of guises -- mere mortal, a treacherous transformation to which a man of Obama's supreme self-regard may never adapt.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9090401657.html

[JimD]

.... Could it be that you "good ole boys" don't want to accept the FACT we have a African-American PRESIDENT? In my opinion there is no way on GOD'S green earth that he could do any more damage than has been done. It is 2009, not 1809. Grow up and accept you/we have a black PRESIDENT.

When lack of leadership-foresight-administrative experience fail to provide a clear, realistic, affordable plan for the future, the path of least resistance is to lay down the race card. It happens every day of the week in my state.

This "good ole boy" (whatever that is) accepts the fact that we have a President. Check back in November, 2010 and see if this President still has a Congressional majority. And check back in November, 2012 and see how the voters feel about his performance.

[BodybyFisher]

By the way, Obama called his grandmother a Typical White Person, think that would fly if a white candidate said Typical Black Person? Let me answer that for you, with this story.

On August 11, 2006, at a campaign stop in Breaks, Virginia, near the Kentucky border, Allen twice used the word macaca to refer to S.R. Sidarth, an Indian-American, who was filming the event as a "tracker" for the opposing Webb campaign. Macaca means "monkey" and is not a racial slur; it is generally used in francophone African nations, which led to speculation that Allen may have heard the epithet from his mother,[40] a Francophone who grew up in French-colonial Tunisia. Allen apologized and later said that he did not know the meaning of the word.[41] In 2008, The Washington Post speculated that, were it not for this single utterance, Allen would have been a strong candidate for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

A white candidate could not utter the word Macaca and he was drummed out of the campaign, he explained he didnt know the meaning of the word.

Obama, says Typical White Person, White Persons Greed, sits with Rev Wright for 20 years and its ok.

Here is something for our member who insisted on implying we are racist, from the American Thinker

September 09, 2009

I Think the Racists in the Left Wing are Upset

Monte Kuligowski

President Obama’s old pastor, Jeremiah White-Folks’-Greed Wright, recently made a phenomenal statement that carries tremendous insight into the worldview of the radical left. On the subject of Obama’s proposed healthcare “reform” the not-so-good reverend had this to say:

“I think the racists in the right wing are upset because poor people are about to be helped.”

Say what? I guess the racists are white and the poor are black? And since whites hate blacks, whites don’t want to help poor blacks via unconstitutional government expansion? What about all the poor white people who are in the right wing of politics? Are they racists too? What about blacks in the right wing? Do they hate the poor white people? Are there any poor blacks in the right wing? Mr. Wright, is the healthcare debate about class warfare, race warfare or a little of both?

Or could it possibly be about the proper role of the federal government?

In consideration of the blind benefit-of-the-doubt that was extended to Barack Obama at the 2008 ballot box, the slip of another racist statement from the far left is beyond belief. In the face of more than a scintilla of evidence that the One who transcended race had ties to blatant racists, the American people wanted to believe that Obama was our hope to end racial divisiveness. The biracial candidate who identified himself with his father’s ancestry was said to be post-racial. After all he was half white and half black.

It didn’t take long for a trusting America to encounter the first in a series of unprecedented racially offense remarks. At Obama’s Presidential Inauguration, of all places, the Rev. Joseph Lowery prayed for the “white” man, to “embrace what is right.” Lord knows we need to single out those greedy white folks to do what’s right. And, in an attempt to spread the discrimination around, the good reverend referred to Asians as the “yellow.”

Next, we were treated to the words of Eric Holder, Obama’s freshly appointed Attorney General, who accused white America of being racial “cowards.” That statement, in context of a 79.8% white America having just elected the first “back man” as President, was nothing less than astounding.

Then we were introduced to Obama’s nominee for Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. We discovered that Sonia Sotomayor, as a “wise Latina women” would reach “better” conclusions than a “white male.” CNN reported that her oft repeated remarks “sparked cries of racism from some Republicans.” Hmmm. Why wouldn’t her remarks spark cries of racism from all post-racial Americans? Surely, there are at least some post-racial Democrats out there.

Not to be outdone by his pastor, Mr. Obama himself, instinctively reacted, before having the facts, to defend his racially sensitive friend, Henry Gates Jr., by accusing a white police officer of acting “stupidly.” Of course, Obama was merely trying to create a teachable beer-summit moment. Maybe he could have calibrated his words better. Too bad he couldn’t calibrate his worldview.

Lastly, at least for now, on the Obama post-racial roster is former “Green Czar,” Van Jones who resigned in shame after the New York Times, I mean FOX news, exposed him as a self-described Marxist who just happened to be a 9/11 “truther” and blatant racist. Jones believes that “white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color communities.”

I think the racists in the left wing are more than upset. Many are just plain mad.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/0...in_the_lef.html at September 09, 2009 - 09:06:07 PM EDT

[gregj1006]

.... Could it be that you "good ole boys" don't want to accept the FACT we have a African-American PRESIDENT? In my opinion there is no way on GOD'S green earth that he could do any more damage than has been done. It is 2009, not 1809. Grow up and accept you/we have a black PRESIDENT.

When lack of leadership-foresight-administrative experience fail to provide a clear, realistic, affordable plan for the future, the path of least resistance is to lay down the race card. It happens every day of the week in my state.

This "good ole boy" (whatever that is) accepts the fact that we have a President. Check back in November, 2010 and see if this President still has a Congressional majority. And check back in November, 2012 and see how the voters feel about his performance.

Whatever the year, his performance will be better than Bush and his father. You can hide behind the semantics all you want. It is a racial issue.

I'm done with this!!!!

[WarrenJ]

It is a racial issue.

NO DARNIT, it isn't.

I cannot even begin to describe how sick and tired I am of THAT CRAP!

Cannot I disagree with you without being handed that racial BS?

######

P.S Yeah, well you know I meant DAMNIT!

[Cadillac Jim]

I'm tired, it's late, and we have a hatemonger popping up. It's bad enough when we have the BS bashers when GM is on the ropes but this is just ridiculous in too many ways. But, we allow politics on threads in the 19th Hole, and some of us do indeed believe that all is fair in love, war and politics. Myself, I think that common decency, courtesy, maturity, and consideration and respect for others, *all* others, is fundamental always, but, that's just me.

I've known people in all walks of life over the years; my wife worked in the field of the developmentally disabled for some years and I developed relationships with many of her clients. I have had friends who were psychotics, some of which were not well controlled by meds at times. I have known people who have been in high Government circles, high corporate circles, and heavyweight players in international technology that were from very foreign cultures. They are all people, they all have depths that not even they can plumb, they all have heights that not all of us can climb. They show you what they are comfortable showing to you at the time, and honor you with the confidence, the greatest and the least of them. I've been in law enforcement watch files because I presented a book on black history to a public library and was photographed for the local paper handing it to the librarian, and in the same year sat in a Joan Baez concert similar to an earlier one by Pete Seeger, Richie Havens, Pearly Brown, and others that I helped organize and produce, and listen to her say something like "It's interesting giving a show to a bunch of bigots!"

Is the hot button here health care reform? The problems of late regarding that are profound, and characterize the polarization we are dealing with on many issues. Heat and vitriol are substitutes for light and knowledge. Some believe that good intentions are fundamental and that the problems simply must be solved as the come up; from that viewpoint those that oppose these good intentions are evil, necessarily -- what else could there be? There are those who believe that we must understand the economics and the obvious implications of our obligations before we commit to them, and that when we find these unacceptable we must step back and find another solution; from that viewpoint those that disagree may be well-intentioned but they really don't "get it." Who is right? Actually, both, and... neither.

But the common tactic of changing the subject while elevating the emotional level by playing the race card or whatever is equivalent to throwing a flash-bang grenade into a string quartet, insofar as constructive contribution is concerned.

I do have one last comment:

Please Click Here

[WarrenJ]

I do have one last comment:

Please Click Here

NICE CLICK!

[WarrenJ]

In my opinion there is no way on GOD'S green earth that he could do any more damage than has been done. It is 2009, not 1809. Grow up and accept you/we have a black PRESIDENT.

It matters not that he is black. Pay attention, idiot: a majority of voters elected him. To suggest the electorate is anti black is self evidently absurd.

Get It?

I'm hopeful your opinion is a minority one. With trillions in deficit spending, this cretin has set about destroying our country's economy.

Invest in Communist Red China.

I can't believe I even said that.

Oh, and yeah, I'm a good ol' boy.

Did I mention you're an idiot?

Regards,

Warren

[gregj1006]

In my opinion there is no way on GOD'S green earth that he could do any more damage than has been done. It is 2009, not 1809. Grow up and accept you/we have a black PRESIDENT.

It matters not that he is black. Pay attention, idiot: a majority of voters elected him. To suggest the electorate is anti black is self evidently absurd.

Get It?

I'm hopeful your opinion is a minority one. With trillions in deficit spending, this cretin has set about destroying our country's economy.

Invest in Communist Red China.

I can't believe I even said that.

Oh, and yeah, I'm a good ol' boy.

Did I mention you're an idiot?

Regards,

Warren

Is this not a car forum,why are you discussing politics? Let It Go!

[BodybyFisher]

This is a car forum, but in the 19th hole any topic is allowed.

Better than Bush? Listen we can discuss this all day long. We were attacked on 9/11 by 4 jetliners and thousands died. That was the culmination of MANY MANY attacks against the United States that occured during the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. The first attack on the WORLD TRADE CENTER in 1993 was on CLINTONS watch and they considered it NOT terrorism they considered it a LEGAL/POLICE action, how limp wristed and WEAK!!!!!

See this article http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wh...mic_crisis.html I blame the Federal Reserve for poor fiscal policy, but I blame Bush for not reigning it in, and not controlling Barney Frank and Chris Dowd.. he was totally focused on protecting the american people while the dems attacked his administration for 'spying on american citizens' with support from the MSM....

Unless you have definitive facts, to refute articles that we post here, dont come in here spewing statements about racism, this is NOT about racism.

And Warren, I agree with you 100%, but please no name calling, lets not drop to the antagonists level

[Cadillac Jim]

Here's a link to an article on the health care speech last night. It explains some of the reasons for the growing opposition to Obama and was very illuminating to me.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/09/09/a-black-man-became-a-walking-red-herring-tonight/

You and I may or may not agree with any or all points addressed here. The thing that I find illuminating is that this fellow, albeit an acknowledged Republican, felt that the speech was bald-faced slippery stuff for the public that was transparently false to the knowledgeable, i.e. an apparently duplicitous play for public support that was not intended to address the issues to any of the Congressmen before him. And, he had facts to back up at least three examples that he gave.

I do hope we get health care reform, without a Government takeover of the health care system and with tort reform. I hope that we can afford to give free health care to millions who won't be paying for it but I don't have a lot of hope that we can afford to do something like that in the best of times, and these are not the best of times. I do hope that Obama learns and succeeds.

[BodybyFisher]

Here is a conservative black journalist, what do you think his excuse is? Racism?

http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/

While you are at it do some research on Thomas Sowell

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowel...ity_of_rhetoric

More Thomas Sowell

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/thomas_sowell/

[BodybyFisher]

You see these are things that I think about, that have NOTHING to do with race. I found this article and it very nicely lays out the issue

October 31, 2008

Getting the 'Ayers Issue' Straight

By M. Jay Wells

If we move beyond the retort of being 8 years old at the time, and consider what we already know, there is plenty of disturbing evidence from Obama's own past about the Ayers relationship.

According to Rasmussen Reports public opinion polling, 50% of voters believe that the "Ayers issue" has hurt the McCain campaign. According to the report, 57% say it is not an important voting consideration. And finally, 59% of all voters believe Ayers will have hardly any or no influence over the policies of a potential Obama administration.

These numbers particularly disturbing. And so let's get this "Ayers issue" straight.

Yes, William Ayers and wife Bernadine Dohrn were anti-American domestic terrorists who bombed US targets. And sure, both have remained insolent about their terrorist activities, proudly declaring no regrets and "we didn't do enough."

But set aside the 1960s terrorism for a moment. What is pertinent is that the terrorist-turned-educator transitioned from assailing America's buildings to assailing America from within them.

When the question of Obama's relationship with Ayers was raised in his April primary debate with Sen. Clinton, he dismissively responded with the now famous falsehood that Ayers was just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." We know the Ayers-Obama relationship goes well beyond this. An Ayers-pattern has emerged; Obama is hiding something and therein lies the "Ayers issue."

Ayers is on the board of the Miranda International Center think tank in Venezuela. The group calls Ayers "the leader of the revolutionary and anti-imperialist group . . . [who has] developed courses around the urban reform of schools, problems of capitalist education, and investigation."

In a 2006 speech at the World Education Forum in Venezuela, Ayers said, "We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution . . . I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education."

Sol Stern observes that Ayers "still boasts about working full-time to bring down American capitalism . . . Ayers now works to indoctrinate America's future teachers in the revolutionary cause, urging them to pass on the lessons to their public school students." In the Ayers social justice model of teaching, "knowledge-based and politically neutral curriculum" is gone.

Ayers & Obama

1) In 1995 Obama kicked off his Illinois Senate run in the living room of Ayers. Also in attendance at this political coming-out party was Communist Party member Quentin Young. The obvious question: Did Ayers introduce and launch someone he did not know, someone not in accord with his own agenda?

2) The same year, Obama had been chosen by Ayers to be the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a public school reform project co-founded by Ayers. We are once again faced with the question: Did Ayers hire someone he did not know, someone not in accord with his agenda?

Having reviewed the CAC Board of Directors meeting minutes, Stanley Kurtz concludes that it "clearly involves significant consultation between the board, headed by Obama, and the Collaborative, co-chaired by Ayers." The materials "show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda."

CAC received a $50 million matched grant which the two used to advance radical alternative education. Funding, however, did not go directly to schools but rather to "external partners" with whom the schools were required to affiliate, writes Stanley Kurtz. Many of the partners were radical community organization groups, ACORN among them.

Another such group, given over $1 million, happened to be Ayers's Small Schools Project, a radical alternative education project founded by Ayers and directed by Michael Klonsky, an Ayers friend and former chairman of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist).

CAC also funded a group called the South Shore African Village Collaborative, philosophically a "carbon-copy" of the worldview of Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ pastor, Jeremiah Wright. One goal, according to its grant application to the Annenberg Challenge: "Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us."

3) Obama served with Ayers on the Board of Directors for The Woods Fund of Chicago. The Fund gave $75,000 to ACORN, $6,000 to Obama's church, and $60,000 to the Children and Family Justice Center founded and run by Dohrn, wife of Ayers. The Fund also gave $50,000 to the Ayers/Klonsky Small Schools Network.

In two separate grants, $75,000 was given to the Arab American Action Network, founded by well-known anti-Semitic spokesman for the PLO and Yasser Arafat Rashid Khalidi.

Ayers, Dohrn and Obama were in attendance at a 2003 AAAN farewell party for Khalidi who was leaving the University of Chicago for a position at Columbia University, reported the Los Angeles Times. The Times has a videotape of the dinner but refuses to release it to the public; apparently the tape is damaging to the Obama campaign.

The video tape is said to include tributes by Ayers and Obama. The Times reported that Obama gave Khalidi a "special tribute" as he reminisced about conversations "around Mona and Rashid's dinner table" that had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."

With evidence mounting and his "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" no longer tenable, Obama admitted, "And so I have talked to [Ayers] about school reform issues." He most assuredly would have, and these "talks" would be far more than casual; they clearly would have been policy and agenda related.

The record - that is, the parts the public are allowed to see - shows the two comfortably working along side one another. Do they accomplish all of the above while having opposing agendas?

And this is the "Ayers issue."

1) First, it is an issue that goes to Obama's honesty and forthrightness with the American people. Why is he secretive about what he initially called a "flimsy" relationship? Why has he been gradually changing his story as the facts emerge?

2) Second, this goes to Obama's judgment. Obama did not work against a radical domestic terrorist who continues to have radical views, he worked along side him.

3) Third, it follows, this goes squarely to Obama's ideology itself. What in Obama drew the radical Ayers into alliance with him? And why was Obama so comfortable moving within his sphere and advancing his agenda?

The "Ayers issue" is not 1960s terrorism.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/get...e_straig_1.html at September 10, 2009 - 11:32:56 AM EDT

[BodybyFisher]

Here's a link to an article on the health care speech last night. It explains some of the reasons for the growing opposition to Obama and was very illuminating to me.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/09/09/a-black-man-became-a-walking-red-herring-tonight/

You and I may or may not agree with any or all points addressed here. The thing that I find illuminating is that this fellow, albeit an acknowledged Republican, felt that the speech was bald-faced slippery stuff for the public that was transparently false to the knowledgeable, i.e. an apparently duplicitous play for public support that was not intended to address the issues to any of the Congressmen before him. And, he had facts to back up at least three examples that he gave.

I do hope we get health care reform, without a Government takeover of the health care system and with tort reform. I hope that we can afford to give free health care to millions who won't be paying for it but I don't have a lot of hope that we can afford to do something like that in the best of times, and these are not the best of times. I do hope that Obama learns and succeeds.

Thanks I did not see this. I am sure you are aware that the LEFT is very unhappy with OBs performance as he has not done enough, now that is scary

[WarrenJ]

Here's a thought and a question:

If Americans come to believe they cannot challenge a black president about his policies without being charged with racism, will they EVER again vote for a minority candidate ?

Regards,

Warren

[WarrenJ]

Here's a thought and a question:

If Americans come to believe they cannot challenge a black president about his policies without being charged with racism, will they EVER again vote for a minority candidate?

Regards,

Warren