Archive for November 2008
I have written quite a bit in this blog on William Ayers, his anarchist views, his Marxist views and his views on education. I have also written about Obama’s ties to Ayers in the educational arena and specifically about them sitting on boards together that gave educational dollars to support Ayers educational objectives.
This story simply won’t go away because of the ties between the two and specifically Ayers’ ideas of radicalized re-education. William Ayers can try to rehabilitate his image in the present tense, but unfortunately for him, his past is a clear indication of his true views and cannot be obfuscated in a present day narrative no matter what he says.
Now, new information comes to light regarding Ayers’ association with Linda Darling-Hammond. As American Thinker reports:
Darling-Hammond is a prominent and widely respected, though controversial, Professor of Education at Stanford. She shares with Ayers long time support for what I consider an authoritarian and ideological approach to education that includes advocacy of “social justice” teaching (not to be confused with support for social justice itself, mind you) and so-called “small schools.”
Ayers and Darling-Hammond share a deeply held view that race is critical to explaining problems in education. [snip] Ayers has also endorsed Darling-Hammond’s call for whites to repay the “education debt” to people of color that has allegedly accumulated for centuries. Darling-Hammond said that repayment of the “education debt” should be the top priority of the next President. She contributed a chapter to a book edited by Ayers called “Education for Democracy.”
According to American Thinker this supports the idea that William Ayers has an influence on Obama’s educational policies:
Ayers’ influence on the incoming Obama administration has quite likely made itself felt for the first time. The campaign today announced the appointment of Linda Darling-Hammond as co-head of the Presidential transition policy team on Education.
No matter your position on William Ayers’ acts during a time when Obama was 8 years old, I have always argued here that the true threat of a William Ayers is his educational philosophies and his power over our youth today. Unfortunately, in today’s educational system, there are far too many liberal educators that distort history and do not teach our youth a truthful history. William Ayers being the poster professor for this type of educational system that our youth now endures. It is time to take back our educational system and teach our youth the truth.
As we watch the President-elect’s transition team and the President-elect himself, one thing should become very clear to conservatives and Republicans and that is Obama is a very gifted politician. Two recent events point to this: 1)Obama backing Lieberman to retain his appointments in the Senate and 2)Obama’s potential appointment (and things look good) of Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State.
The Senate Democrats did not want to welcome Lieberman back into their fold; however, with the Senate Democrats not achieving a filibuster proof Senate, Obama had the political savvy to understand that Lieberman can get them there, and Obama encouraged (this being the kinder word) the Senate to welcome Lieberman back and allow him to keep his important Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chairmanship. Lieberman is now beholden to Obama and will continue to caucus with Senate Democrats accordingly.
The second and even more important divided group among Democrats are the Hillary Clinton supporters often referred to as PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass). This group of voters supported Hillary Clinton and voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin. At least 4 million members strong, by appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State he recaptures these 4 million disenfranchised Democratic voters. From the PUMA blogs I’ve read, they are generally happy and many of them ecstatic about this appointment. If her appointment doesn’t come to pass then all bets are off because this will further disenfranchise the PUMAs and the retribution by this group could end up being a political mistake by Obama that he may not overcome.
In one week, if all goes according to plan, President-elect Obama will have completely solidified the entire Democratic Party and will enter office riding this “righteous wind” — a very powerful position to start from and one that may be very difficult for the Republicans to overcome. If Obama’s victory on November 4th wasn’t evidence enough for you, his actions since that day prove that is he is a very formidable politician.
After the much anticipated 60 Minutes Barack Obama interview, here is basically all that was said in a 60 second recap:
First Part of Interview with Obama One on One
- Challenges we are confronting are enormous and multiple
- He’s working on National Security team
- He’s working on economic plan
- Unprecedented crisis since Great Depression (but not comparable to Great Depression), Paulson has worked tirelessly; we’ve assigned a member of our transition team to speak with Paulson daily
- Bailout is helping because things would be worse without it
- Need to focus on foreclosures and what is happening to homeowners
- Automotive industry collapsing would be dire; we must provide assistance but not a blank check and must have a stable auto industry plan. Under normal circumstances the auto industry could go into bankruptcy but because these are extraordinary circumstances normal measures can’t be taken
- Even though cost per barrel for oil is way down, we must break our addiction with oil and must have alternative energy
- We will have to spend money now to stimulate economy and shouldn’t worry about that spending versus the deficit it creates in the first year of the administration
- Need to transform banking system, not heavy handed regulations but must restore balance
- Will take early action, will close Guantanamo Bay and will stop torturing captives
- As soon as he takes office will start plan to draw down troops in Iraq
- We’ve got to shore up efforts in Afghanistan, must stamp out Al Qaeda including capturing or killing Bin Laden
- Will announce a cabinet soon, would not commit to whom any of these folks would be but will include at least one Republican
- Has spent a lot of time reading briefing papers and reading Abraham Lincoln; he finds Lincoln a very wise man; he’s also been reading about FDR and the Depression
- Will experiment and try things until something works in dealing with economic crisis
- Free market system must be held to, but in economic crisis government needs to kick start economy; this is not a Republican or Democratic problem; needs to be solved by all
- Said he wants to create a bond of trust between the Presidency and the people that he believes has been lost
Second Part of Interview with Barack and Michelle
- Neither of them think being elected has sunk in
- The emotion over the outcome at Grant Park was great
- Talked about what it meant to both African Americans and everyone of all races
- He didn’t believe race played a rolled in the actual votes that people voted for who they thought was qualified and who they wanted
- Tried to make the next day normal for the kids at school; Malia was embarrassed by kids cheering
- Got teased for his apartment in Washington DC because it was worse than his staffers’ apartments
- Michelle spoke highly of Laura Bush; says White House is beatiful and awe inspiring
- The two year campaign period has made them closer as a family; living in the White House will have them all together
- One of the great joys of the campaign is seeing the girls adjust and remain themselves; retaining the kids’ normalcy over the next four years is of high importance
- Not a complaint but the loss of anonymity and small routines of life will be missed; wants to try to stay as normal possible
- Michelle is serious about motherhood; primary focus first year will be kids, but she will evolve a role of First Lady
- Kids school choice will be based on the best interest of the girls
- Won’t get dog until they are settled; so not until next year
- Michelle’s mother will move into White House if she wants to, and they hope that she’ll come
- Thinks BCS system doesn’t work and college football should create an 8 team playoff
I have to admit that I really enjoyed this interview. I think I actually saw both Obama’s in a new light after this interview. As is the case with this blog, I will be monitoring as to whether some of the rhetoric I saw here in President-elect Obama’s comments on policies will come to fruition. I will continue to be critical and analytical in how these policies come to pass, but, for tonight, I think we ought to just enjoy what we saw and heard.
So it looks like Barack Obama will now be addressing the nation on a weekly basis through a YouTube video. It is important to look at the rhetoric in these addresses to find out where the President-elect plans to take our country. I’ve taken the transcript of the address and bolded the sections where I believe he speaks substantively. We can quibble over whether or not there are more items of substance in the address, but I’d rather look at the overall tone and what the President-elect is telling us in the substantive elements I’ve outlined of his address. Following the transcript, I analyze the substantive remarks.
Today, the leaders of the G-20 countries — a group that includes the world’s largest economies — are gathering in Washington to seek solutions to the ongoing turmoil in our financial markets. I’m glad President Bush has initiated this process — because our global economic crisis requires a coordinated global response.
And yet, as we act in concert with other nations, we must also act immediately here at home to address America’s own economic crisis. This week, amid continued volatility in our markets, we learned that unemployment insurance claims rose to their highest levels since September 11, 2001. We’ve lost jobs for ten straight months — nearly 1.2 million jobs this year, many of them in our struggling auto industry. And millions of our fellow citizens lie awake each night wondering how they’re going to pay their bills, stay in their homes, and save for retirement.
Make no mistake: this is the greatest economic challenge of our time. And while the road ahead will be long, and the work will be hard, I know that we can steer ourselves out of this crisis — because here in America we always rise to the moment, no matter how hard. And I am more hopeful than ever before that America will rise once again.
But we must act right now. Next week, Congress will meet to address the spreading impact of the economic crisis. I urge them to pass at least a down-payment on a rescue plan that will create jobs, relieve the squeeze on families, and help get the economy growing again. In particular, we cannot afford to delay providing help for the more than one million Americans who will have exhausted their unemployment insurance by the end of this year. If Congress does not pass an immediate plan that gives the economy the boost it needs, I will make it my first order of business as President.
Even as we dig ourselves out of this recession, we must also recognize that out of this economic crisis comes an opportunity to create new jobs, strengthen our middle class, and keep our economy competitive in the 21st century.
That starts with the kinds of long-term investments that we’ve neglected for too long. That means putting two million Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools. It means investing $150 billion to build an American green energy economy that will create five million new jobs, while freeing our nation from the tyranny of foreign oil, and saving our planet for our children. It means making health care affordable for anyone who has it, accessible for anyone who wants it, and reducing costs for small businesses. And it also means giving every child the world-class education they need to compete with any worker, anywhere in the world.
Doing all this will require not just new policies, but a new spirit of service and sacrifice, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. If this financial crisis has taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers — in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people. And that is how we will meet the challenges of our time — together. Thank you.
To make it easier, here are the substantive words from his address put together:
Our global economic crisis requires a coordinated global response.
We must also act immediately here at home to address America’s own economic crisis.
But we must act right now. In particular, we cannot afford to delay providing help for the more than one million Americans who will have exhausted their unemployment insurance by the end of this year.
That means putting two million Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools. It means investing $150 billion to build an American green energy economy that will create five million new jobs, while freeing our nation from the tyranny of foreign oil, and saving our planet for our children. It means making health care affordable for anyone who has it, accessible for anyone who wants it, and reducing costs for small businesses. And it also means giving every child the world-class education they need to compete with any worker, anywhere in the world.
Doing all this will require not just new policies, but a new spirit of service and sacrifice, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. If this financial crisis has taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers — in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people. And that is how we will meet the challenges of our time — together.
Basically, what I get from the substantive remarks is that government has to provide the resolutions. Even though he talks about us all working together it is clear that the overreaching theme is that from the campaign, i.e., he will setup various government programs to address these issues. I was not alive during the Great Depression, but I believe that history teaches us that the government intervention that occurred at that time only prolonged the depression rather than getting us back on our way to prosperity. What is more frightening is that anytime government expands it never again retracts. Once you build a bigger government, you have little chance of making it smaller in the future.
What does this mean? This means in my opinion, you can’t bail out the auto industry. You can’t provide univeral healthcare. You cannot create a “green” energy policy. You cannot do any of things noted above without expanding government. And you simply cannot expand government. Most of the problems we face today are due to government intervention and the size of government being too large. We must limit government interference. We must make government smaller rather than larger if we have any hope of prospering in the future.
We can take care of each other. We do it every day in our individual lives, but we cannot have government have us take care of each other, or have government take care of us. This is not the American way. And this is not the way I will live the remainder of my life, beholden to a government that I have no interest in being beholden to. Stand up for your individual rights and the rights of American capitalism, the free market system, and individual human rights. Stand up before it is too late and you no longer recognize our country as America.
This just out in the November 14th edition of the Chicago Tribune:
In a new afterword to his memoir, 1960s radical William Ayers describes himself as a “family friend” of President-elect Barack Obama and writes that the campaign controversy over their relationship was an effort by Obama’s political enemies to “deepen a dishonest narrative” about the candidate. <snip>
He’ll appear Friday on “Good Morning America” to promote the re-issue of his book this week. The Tribune obtained a copy of the updated material.
In it, Ayers — who did not respond to requests for comment — summarized his relationship with Obama: “[W]e had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I’d made a small donation to his earliest political campaign.”
Ayers lamented that his relationship with Obama became an issue.
“The more serious point is that Obama was asked once more to defend something that ought to be at the very heart of democracy: the importance of talking to many people in this complicated and wildly diverse society, of listening with the possibility of learning something new, of speaking with the possibility of persuading or influencing others. … In a robust and sophisticated democracy, political leaders, indeed, all of us, would seek out ways to talk with many people who hold dissenting, even radical, ideas.”
What? “Knew one another as neighbors and family friends.” Should engage each other even those with radical ideas? Hmmm, doesn’t seem like that’s what we heard before the election.
The reason I find this so disturbing is not because I think Barack Obama “palled around with a domestic terrorist” (Palin’s description on the campaign trail). There is absolutely no doubt that during the 60s and 70s, William Ayers was a domestic terrorist, but let us remember that the Vietnam War was a very turbulent time in this country. Anti war movements were everywhere; drug use ran rampant. In some respects, the youth of our country during that time were not in their right mind for many reasons. I am not offering excuses for them, but an understanding.
The reason I find a relationship between William Ayers and Barack Obama so disturbing is what William Ayers represents today. It’s not that Ayers was a domestic terrorist, it is that he, today, remains a man with a radical left agenda with the purpose of indoctrinating our youth. William Ayers believe it or not is a very honest guy. He speaks openly about his current beliefs.
In interviews held in April 2002, William Ayers stated the following:
I considered myself partly an anarchist then and I consider myself partly an anarchist now. I mean I’m as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist which is to say you know I find a lot of the ideas in anarchism appealing.
During a time where both William Ayers and Barack Obama attended a conference in April of 2002, Ayers stated:
I’m very open about what I think and nobody here is surprised about what I think. But at the same time, there is a struggle over various religious fundamentalism, Jihad being the most visible. But the religious fundamentalism of the Christians and the Jews is equally as troubling.
Is one of those regrets that I took extreme measures against the United States at a time of tremendous crisis, no it is not. I don’t regret that. The people of the world are being exploited and oppressed and militarized by the great imperialist powers led by the United States, that is the situation today in my view. It’s a situation we should all be horrified at and we should all oppose.
The White Panther party was a group of cultural revolutionaries mainly. They were are artists and anarchists and drug, dope smokers and a really good group of people. We create felons by having these archaic puritan drug laws that make no sense whatsoever in any logical way so in that sense I still feel like an anarchist. I don’t feel like the rules apply and if they don’t apply, I don’t feel like you should follow them.
I wanted to give you a little taste of William Ayers, but there are many videos and audios on YouTube where William Ayers is very forthcoming with his views. In the link I’ve given you above the video goes on to make comparisons between William Ayers’ beliefs and those of Barack Obama, and I encourage you to watch it in its entirety.
So the question really becomes is William Ayers the type of person that you would have as a family friend? Again, I appreciate Mr. Ayers honesty and that he is not one to hide his views, but seriously should the President-elect of the United States of America be a family friend of this man? And why does this family friend relationship information come to us after the election? Will the main stream media finally investigate this relationship? How many times do the American people need to be lied to before they wake up and understand the associations in Mr. Obama’s recent past?
You know the answers to these questions. Those who pay attention and do not take their spoon feeding from the main stream media know the answers to these questions.
As I reported in an earlier blog post, Russia launched its first test of President-elect Obama just hours after his victorious election. In a follow up to this story, Obama has made a misstep after a telephone conversation with Poland’s President Lech Kaczynski. In a Wall Street Journal article entitled “Obama and Missile Defense” the following is reported:
From the press reports and statements regarding their brief exchange it seems Messrs. Obama and Kaczynski drew radically different conclusions on a critical issue — missile defense. Mr. Kaczynski raised the subject, given the recent U.S.-Polish agreement to base missile defense assets in Poland. In the words of the Polish press statement about the call, Mr. Kaczynski heard Mr. Obama say “that the missile defense project would continue.”
The Obama transition promptly issued a rebuttal: “President-elect Obama made no commitment on it. His position is as it was throughout the campaign — that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable.”
This was a remarkable statement. Mr. Obama contradicted a head of state, clinging to a campaign position that could most kindly be described as weak and ambiguous. The statement also reflected a naiveté in the structuring of such transition conversations — and future dealings with truly unfriendly foreign leaders — that could have been avoided.
Imagine that, an Obama naiveté on foreign policy. Say it isn’t so Joe. Where were you Vice President-elect Biden, when Obama so desperately needed you on foreign policy. I joke, but Mr. Obama’s naiveté on such matters is truly dangerous for our country. But I’m sure those in the cult won’t mind.
I want to address the web address (url) of my blog which begins he’s not my president. I know that many Republicans were offended when many on the left refused to acknowledge President Bush as their President after the questionable count in Florida in 2000 and the overall popular vote for Gore. Even though my goal on this blog site is to expose Barack Obama’s rhetoric, I thought I’d justify the naming of my blog url.
It should be noted that back in the early ’90s I received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy with an emphasis in ethics, and my philosophical thinking tendencies still drive my positions today. So my best defense of my website url is not that I don’t want Barack Obama to be my President, but that he in fact logically cannot be my President. Dr. Robert Coambs best describes this position in the following syllogism:
To be POTUS, the candidate’s eligibility must be publicly known.
Obama’s eligibility is not publicly known.
This syllogism responds only to rules of deductive logic and cannot be overturned by any human action. If the premises are taken to be true, then the conclusion must be true. There is no law or statute that requires the rules of logic to be proven in a court of law for them to be enforceable. The laws of logic are compelled by nature, and cannot be challenged by any law of man.
Therefore, the conclusion of this syllogism cannot be questioned by humans of any authority. No human is empowered to alter, rewrite, or adjudicate the laws of the universe.
Therefore, Obama is not POTUS.
I believe both premises to be true, therefore, the conclusion is true, and as long as both premises remain true on January 20, 2009 when Obama is sworn in, the conclusion will remain true and logically Barack Obama in not my President, nor yours for that matter, nor anyone in the United States’ President.
Again, the purpose of this blog is not to prove whether or not Obama is my President or yours. The purpose is to expose Obama’s rhetoric. When he begins speaking again, I’ll be here to analyze his words and provide that analysis here. I welcome all thoughtful comments on any subject addressed here, but especially those posts regarding his rhetoric.