Posted on 10/17/2008 7:35:49 AM PDT by markomalley
Let's turn the Obama/Ayers question upside down. I don't really care why Barack Obama was attracted to Bill Ayers. Obama is attracted to anyone he thinks will help advance his personal ambitions.
I'm more interested in why Bill Ayers was attracted to Barack Obama, because once you know how Ayers thinks, you have to wonder about anyone he would go out of his way to support.
If you really want to get a sense of Bill Ayers, all you have to do is read his blog (http://billayers.wordpress.com/) He keeps it more or less up to date. He has lots to say about himself, his terrorist past and his association with Barack Obama. He claims in a letter to the New York Times, republished on his blog, that the Times misrepresented his famous "we didn't do enough" quote in its September 11, 2001 story — suggesting he meant they didn't do enough to oppose the Vietnam War, not that they didn't do enough domestic bombing.
But in the same paragraph, he claims that he and the rest of the Weather Underground were "remarkably restrained." You can draw your own conclusions about that, but one thing you can't escape if you read much of Ayers's blog is that he doesn't think very highly of the United States.
In this same letter, Ayers describes his 2001 book titled Fugitive Days as "from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism." And which acts of "terrorism" does he feel compelled to mention as primary examples?
It begins literally in the shadow of Hiroshima and comes of age in the killing fields of Southeast Asia. My book criticizes the American obsession with a clean and distant violence, and the culture of thoughtlessness and carelessness that results from it.
So he condemns terrorism in general, from start to finish, but when looking for something specific to demonstrate what really burns his butt, chooses to put only America's deeds in the spotlight. Oh, he does mention the actions of our enemies — it was only four days after 9/11 after all. But unlike American "terrorism," which only breeds "the culture of thoughtlessness and carelessness," Ayers sees the potential for good to come from 9/11:
All that we witnessed September 11 — the awful carnage and pain, the heroism of ordinary people — may drive us mad with grief and anger, or it may open us to hope in new ways. Perhaps precisely because we have suffered we can embrace the suffering of others and gather the necessary wisdom to resist the impulse to lash out randomly. The lessons of the anti-war movement of the 60s and 1970s may be more urgent now than ever.
See? When America gets attacked, maybe we'll find out how the rest of the world feels, and maybe we'll all start thinking like Bill Ayers.
In a story published on Friday by Slate, David Tanenbaum — who, like Obama, worked with Ayers on education issues in Chicago — insists that the Ayers he knew was nothing like the Weather Underground bomber. He wrote poetry, wrote letters to his kid in college and worked to oppose the agenda of people like Bill Bennett and John DiIulio, who wanted to take very violent teen offenders and try them as adults. According to Tanenbaum, this concern for youth was what made him a palatable colleague, not the actions of his past, of which Tanenbaum tells us he was unaware at the time.
Fine. Whether your thinking on youth crime is closer to Bennett and DiIulio, or closer to Ayers and Tanenbaum, let's stipulate that Ayers's work on this particular issue — if that's all you knew of him — doesn't make an association with him a disqualifier for the presidency.
A complete review of all Ayers's writings — just on his blog alone — leaves no question that the man has deep antipathy for America's role in the world and for free-market capitalism. His antipathy is so great that he even proposes abolishing the American flag and national anthem:
"On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed. Is not nationalism — that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder — one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?"
I think you can pretty well get the idea what Ayers thinks of America. Fine. He can think that if he wants.
Here's what I want to know: What kind of politician would a guy like this choose to support — not only support, but host a fundraiser for in his home? Ayers hosted this event for Obama in 1995. It was a time when Obama was looking to emerge on the scene in Chicago politics, and Ayers was sufficiently enthusiastic about Obama to go to the trouble of inviting friends, neighbors and colleagues to meet him and contribute money.
Read Ayers's blog. Look around. Do you get the impression that this is a guy who will just go out of his way to get behind any politician without first ascertaining that they shared the same agenda?
Bill Ayers saw something in Barack Obama that made him very enthusiastic about supporting him. He didn't just put up a yard sign for him. He hosted the fundraiser that introduced him onto the political scene. This man — who thinks America is the primary terrorist in the world, and whose disdain for love of country is so deep that he wants to abolish our flag and national anthem — was convinced he had found a kindred spirit in Barack Obama.
Why?
My guess is easily pliable moron ...
Ayers will be sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom within a year of Obama’s “installation”, should it occur.
The question the MSM should be asking but too busy doing an expose on joe the plumber.
Psychologically weak—but with sufficient mainstream polish and pretense, just enough intelligence, and already driven to ‘change from within’ with his own ambition.
Ayers named his two children after African-American socialist and ‘black power’ revolutionaries. Could young Barry have been the capable, black man-child that Ayers had always wanted, but never could?
“Ayers will be sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom within a year of Obama’s “installation”, should it occur.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s one of the first guests
Excellent post!
Use of the word "association" implies a far less significant connection to radicalism than existed between the two. The operative word should be "alliance." An alliance cannot be so easily dismissed as being, "just a guy in my neighborhood."
Follow the money and the political power that accrued through each of these questionable "alliances," and people can more readily reach infomed conclusions about the link between his radical alliances and his socialist political philosophy as expressed in an unguarded moment to the name referred to as "Joe the Plumber."
Ayers saw the perfect “black” vehicle for his left-wing fantasies. Obama has no center and no self; he’s a sociopath, and while he was clearly formed in radical left-wing politics and Islam by everybody from his mother to his madrassa teachers to Frank Davis to Michelle, he is actually not working from that basis. His whole quest is to define himself, while at the same time using this lack of self to morph into things that he believes will be acceptable to his audience of the moment. This is typical sociopath behavior, and is why so many fools in the US really believe Obama is speaking to them. He lies so automatically that he will and can say anything.
Ayers is Obama’s Pygmalion, the Greek sculptor who created a statue that came to life (the model for Professor Higgins in Shaw’s play and in My Fair Lady). Ayers, like most wealthy white radicals of his generation, always wanted to be black, because blacks were regarded by the readers of Frantz Fanon as the most “authentic” revolutionaries, filled with hatred and a desire for vengance that surpassed even that of the lumpenproletariat.
Ayers created Obama, using somebody with coffee-colored skin who was desperately attempting to hitch his self-definition to that of the hate-filled and generally Muslim wing of the American black population (Wright had been a Black Muslim until he left to found a “church” because Calypso Louie clearly wasn’t going to share the bucks).
Rush said yesterday that what people thought of as “cool” in the case of Obama was actually “coldness.” There is no center there, he’s a Marxist and a black racist, but at the same time, even these things are something he has adopted solely in his quest for self-definition, which he hopes to achieve through power.
God help us all if he is elected.
I bet that Al Sharpton and Farrakhan will probably be among the first guests.
I would suspect that Ayers will probably get a Cabinet appointment. I also think Sharpton will probably be put up for the Supreme Court.
That’s it!!!! That’s the question I want asked in the media (won’t happen). It isn’t that Barry chose Ayers. It’s that Ayers chose Barry.
Ayers will be sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom within a year of Obama’s “installation”, should it occur.
__________________________
Along with Sharpton,Wright, Farrakhan..
Gaaaawd!
Flood the MSM out with emails. Send articles/videos and DEMAND..DEMAND they put these before the voting public.
Let your voice be heard!
McCain’s anemic attempts to fight Obama back is losing this election.
Flood McCain out with emails. DEMAND he fight back HARD- name names!
Please go to
http://www.protestthemedia.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=7
and pick up all the email addresses to the McCain camp and HUNDREDS of emails of MSM.
CAN THEY IGNORE A MILLION EMAILS?
I asked this very question a few days ago. Just what was it about Obama that drew Bill Ayers toward him. Why would he take someone under his wing that he couldn’t trust and didn’t share his views?
Brilliant article. I think that is what we need to amplify in our blogs. What excited Ayers about Obama? Was he not only of like mind but did he appeared to have covert support and funding. Did Ayers see the sudden chance to undermine the country he despised from the very top? If Obama had the connections to have his bio not only given a green light by a major publisher but also a six figure advance, would tell Ayers that this was the chance he has been waiting for.
Now think about this for a moment. If you wanted to put together a Manchurian candidate would you throw it together in a couple years or would you be laying up the support for a decade or more?
If that is so, there is probably someone that is being groomed today to control the presidency a dozen years from now.
As tin foily as that sounds that is the conclusion one has to come to when you put together Obamas past and where he is today. Who would sponsor a guy with 0 on his vitae unless they thought that they fully owned him from the beginning and could work around that issue.
Why Obama?
three words.
FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS
He acted as a father figure during his formative years and may have been much more than a ‘father figure’. Too many associations, alliances, and coincidences once Obama stepped foot on the mainland. Born and bred a Marxist (or Neo-Stalinist is likely the most applicable description.)
Why Obama? FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS
Which raises an intriguing question — is it possible that Ayers and Davis ever met, or corresponded in some manner?
“Why Obama?
three words.
FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS”
Yes, I believe you are correct.
Good observation, Gemsbok.
Ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.