Obama and the Company He Keeps

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,827
1,790
Like I felt about Ron Paul, it does matter who one associates oneself with. Now that doesn't mean that any candidate will not attract moonbats, that's a given. The question becomes, how far is the candidate interacting with them?

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YThjYTU1ZDBjNmQ2YzcwNzU1MmYwN2JiMWY0ZGI0NDA=


April 11, 2008, 6:00 a.m.

The Company He Keeps
Meet Obama’s circle: The same old America-hating Left.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Why is Barack Obama so comfortable around people who so despise America and its allies? Maybe it’s because they’re so comfortable around him.

He presents as the transcendent agent of “change.” Sounds platitudinous, but it’s really quite strategically vaporous. Sen. Obama is loath to get into the details of how we should change, and, as the media’s Chosen One, he hasn’t had to.

But he’s not, as some hopefully dismiss him, a charismatic lightweight with a gift for sparkling the same old vapid cant. Judging from the company he chooses to keep, Obama’s change would radically alter this country. He eschews detail because most Americans don’t believe we’re a racist, heartless, imperialist cesspool of exploitation. The details would be disqualifying.


MICHELLE
So, instead, we get glimpses. The most profound influence in his life, his wife Michelle, is notoriously less circumspect than her careful husband about where she’s coming from. Her college thesis, which Princeton tried to keep under lock and key, testifies to a race-obsessed worldview. She may have refined it, but she’s never grown out of it.

After four years at one of America’s most esteemed academic institutions, Michelle recoiled at the thought of “further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.” That the sky has been the limit for her, that she has managed to ride the “periphery” from Princeton to Harvard Law School, to one of the country’s top law firms, and to a plethora of prestigious institutional positions, has not much altered her perspective. Through the windows of her mansion on Chicago’s south side, American society still appears as a caste system.

The United States, says she, is “just downright mean.” Never, prior to her husband’s presidential run, had she had a reason to feel proud of it, she told a campaign throng. But by last November, with Barack’s pursuit of the brass ring catching momentum, she suddenly got plenty proud. And confident: so much so that she was moved to tell MSNBC, “Black America will wake up and get it” — unite and carry him over the finish line.

THE REV. WRIGHT
...

Obama and his supporters brusquely dismiss the drawing of sensible inferences from these gestures of admiration as “guilt by association.” In point of fact, though, the Obamas didn’t just associate with Wright. They subsidized him to the tune of over $20,000 — not exactly chump change from a couple without great means or any history of philanthropy to speak of. And until recent public attention to the pastor’s noxious rants threatened to derail his White House bid, Sen. Obama kept Wright officially on board as part of his campaign’s “African American Religious Leadership Committee.”

BILL AYERS AND BERNADINE DOHRN
With this as background, is it really all that startling that Sen. Obama enjoys a friendly relationship with Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, a pair of terrorists?

I want to be clear here: Not terrorist sympathizers. Terrorists.

...

It was at the Chicago home of Ayers and Dohrn that Obama, then an up-and-coming “community organizer,” had his political coming out party in 1995. Not content with this rite of passage in Lefty World — where unrepentant terrorists are regarded as progressive luminaries, still working “only to educate” — both Obamas tended to the relationship with the Ayers.

Barack Obama made a joint appearance with Bill Ayers in 1997 at a University of Chicago panel on the outrage of treating juvenile criminals as if they were, well, criminals. Obama apologists say, “So what? People appear with other people all the time.” Nice try. This panel was orchestrated by none other than Michelle Obama, then an Associate Dean of Student Services. Ayers didn’t happen to be there — he was invited by the Obamas to educate students on the question before the house: “Should a Child Ever Be Called a ‘Super Predator?’”

And here’s how the University’s press release chose to describe this would-be super predator:

William Ayers, author of A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court (Beacon Press, 1997), says “We should call a child a child. A 13-year-old who picks up a gun isn’t suddenly an adult. We have to ask other questions: How did he get the gun? Where did it come from?”

Ayers, who spent a year observing the Cook County Temporary Juvenile Detention Center in Chicago, is one of four panelists who will speak on juvenile justice[.]

The other panelists included “Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama … who is working to block proposed legislation that would throw more juvenile offenders into the adult system.” The goal was to promote change, to actuate the vision of “Chicago reformer” Jane Addams, who’d sought “the establishment of a separate court system for children which would act like a ‘kind and just parent’ for children in crisis.” Never mind the crises they’d caused the victims of their wanton murders and mayhem — the fault for those, surely, was our downright mean society.

...

RASHID KHALIDI
In the interim, Ayers and Obama had teamed up for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charitable organization. Together, they voted to donate $75,000 of the largesse they controlled to the Arab American Action Network. The AAAN was co-founded by Rashid Khalidi, a longtime supporter of Palestinian “resistance” attacks against Israel, which he openly regards as a racist, apartheid state. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, Khalidi peremptorily denies having been a PLO operative or having directed its official press agency for six years (from 1976 to 1982). There can be no gainsaying, though, that he was an influential apologist for Yasser Arafat, the terror master who spawned two Intifadas and ordered the murder of American diplomats.

In the mean, besotted United States, of course, being a terrorist, a terror apologist, or simply raging at the machine qualifies one for a cushy academic soapbox. Thus did Khalidi eventually land on his feet at the University of Chicago, where he ran in the same circles as Associate Dean Michelle Obama, Law Professor Barack Obama, University of Illinois-Chicago Education Professor Bill Ayers, and Northwestern Law Professor Bernadine Dohrn (who prepared for a career in instructing future officers of the court with a stint in federal prison for flouting a judge’s order that she testify in a grand jury investigation into the Weathermen’s infamous Brinks robbery-murders).

For Khalidi, though, greener pastures called: the opportunity to become a professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University. There, he now directs Edward Said’s legacy: Columbia’s notoriously Israel-bashing Middle East Institute — though, much to the University’s chagrin, he was scratched in 2005 from a program designed educate teachers on instructing their young students about the Middle East. New York City schools chancellor Joel Klein concluded Khalidi’s splenetic meanderings mightn’t be the best model.

They didn’t faze Barack Obama, though. He was front and center with Ayers and Dohrn at a farewell bash when Khalidi left Chicago for New York. It was only right. Khalidi, after all, had hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 2000, when the latter launched an unsuccessful campaign for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. And so it goes. A few weeks ago, Khalidi told worldnetdaily.com he supports Obama’s presidential run “because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause,” and because Obama has promised negotiations with Iran.

Ayres, too, provided a minor ($200) contribution to Obama, in 2001. That was the year of September 11, just a few days before the Times published its excerpt of Ayres’s remembrances of bombings past. Read the short interview and ask yourself: Could anyone, let alone someone as sophisticated as Barack Obama, chat with Bill Ayers for about 30 seconds and not know exactly where is coming from?

Could they really have been friends? Well, Ayers is virtually channeling Michelle Obama and Jeremiah Wright when he wails that American “society is not a just and fair and decent place.”

“God, what a great country,” he scoffed to the Times. “It makes me want to puke.”

Hey, right back at you there, Professor. At least that’s how most of us are likely to feel. But not Sen. Obama. And that’s why Ayers — like Khalidi and Wright and Michelle Obama, and others who know the senator well while we’ve been told precious little — sees in Barack Obama the change he’s been waiting for.

No thanks.
 
Never, prior to her husband’s presidential run, had she had a reason to feel proud of it

That isn't what she said. No point in reading the rest of the OP.
 
Never, prior to her husband’s presidential run, had she had a reason to feel proud of it

That isn't what she said. No point in reading the rest of the OP.

Hmm, wasn't a quote, but keep those blinders handy.
 
"The same old America-hating Left."

Does any serious person really believe that liberals hate America? It's that type of nasty invective that polarizes this country and poisons debate.

I can think of any number of conservative beliefs that reject basic American principles, but I only make such an accusation sarcastically, as a parody of absurd right-wing hate-speech.

There is a thing in psychology called "projection". It happens when a person who hates a trait in himself ascribes that trait to others. The things you say about other people reveal more about you, Kathianne, than it does about them.
 
Hmm, wasn't a quote, but keep those blinders handy.
Nonetheless, it was an inaccurate representation of Michelle Obama's actual statement.

It leaves out the word "really", which dramatically alters her meaning. It's dishonest, un-Christian, and unworthy of you, I would hope.
 
Here's the undoctored speech, as well as a similar statement later that week.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_cv333saZoU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_cv333saZoU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
 
a few excellent articles from a great magazine entitled The Christian Century. When the April 22nd edition, which I got in the mail last week, gets posted online, I will link to a few other articles on this same subject:

http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4676

http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4678

I recommend then to anyone who wishes to broaden their perspective on Jeremiah Wright.

I realize full well that many on here have no desire to have their perspectives on that issue broadened and that is sad.
 
Nonetheless, it was an inaccurate representation of Michelle Obama's actual statement.

It leaves out the word "really", which dramatically alters her meaning. It's dishonest, un-Christian, and unworthy of you, I would hope.

Ohh ya, a good leftoid parsing the meaning of words and sentences to suit you. Sorry if us knuckle dragging bone head neanderthals just don't get the nuiance.
 
Notice from my earlier post that the National Review article omits the word "really" from Michelle's speech. Although some doctored versions of the clip have circulated, the untampered speech has been on youTube for 2 months.

The author, a professional writer, knows the importance of checking sources and verifying quotes. His failure to do so when the source can be found so easily establishes his intent to write a hit piece, and his dishonest methods while doing that.

Omitting the word "really" distorts her meaning completely. She wasn't saying that she had never been proud of America before; she was saying that her pride before had never been as great as it is now.

That's why the author left it out. He wanted to make something clumsy seem nasty. Really nasty.
 
Notice from my earlier post that the National Review article omits the word "really" from Michelle's speech. Although some doctored versions of the clip have circulated, the untampered speech has been on youTube for 2 months.

The author, a professional writer, knows the importance of checking sources and verifying quotes. His failure to do so when the source can be found so easily establishes his intent to write a hit piece, and his dishonest methods while doing that.

Omitting the word "really" distorts her meaning completely. She wasn't saying that she had never been proud of America before; she was saying that her pride before had never been as great as it is now.

That's why the author left it out. He wanted to make something clumsy seem nasty. Really nasty.

Ya there is such a world of difference between " I have never rally felt proud" and " I have never been proud". You go on believing that while us dumb shits believe what she "really" meant.
 
Sorry if us knuckle dragging bone head neanderthals just don't get the nuiance [sic].
I wouldn't call you a "bone head".

It isn't nuance. It's honesty that's the issue.

If the word didn't change the meaning, why did the hit piece leave it out? Why do all the conservative pundits leave it out?

And why don't you care when you have been spoon-fed misinformation?
 
I wouldn't call you a "bone head".

It isn't nuance. It's honesty that's the issue.

If the word didn't change the meaning, why did the hit piece leave it out? Why do all the conservative pundits leave it out?

And why don't you care when you have been spoon-fed misinformation?

Because there is little difference, and the writer knew it. As I know it and any sane person not a liberal hack knows it.
 
a few excellent articles from a great magazine entitled The Christian Century. When the April 22nd edition, which I got in the mail last week, gets posted online, I will link to a few other articles on this same subject:

http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4676

http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4678

I recommend then to anyone who wishes to broaden their perspective on Jeremiah Wright.

I realize full well that many on here have no desire to have their perspectives on that issue broadened and that is sad.

Have you "broadened" your perspective on David Duke also ?

Maybe hes a nice guy if you ignore the fact he hates blacks...as Wright is a logical thinker that just believes the US government is trying to kill blacks with HIV.....


moron :cuckoo:
 
Nonetheless, it was an inaccurate representation of Michelle Obama's actual statement.

It leaves out the word "really", which dramatically alters her meaning. It's dishonest, un-Christian, and unworthy of you, I would hope.

Save it clown....the word "dramatically" alters NOTHING about her statement....

The meaning is basically the same with or without it....exactly how proud she is is irrelevant....
 
RetiredGySgt: Really, I want to know. You feel the need to punctuate so many arguments with insults that I've been assuming you were never educated in debate or analytical reasoning.

If you have those skills, you should try to show them off. Because dumb people resolve conflicts with violence and abuse, smart people assume that you don't have anything else when you resort to those as your primary debating tactic, and we lump you in with the lumps. Rote contradiction without reason or support produces the same result.

---

Since you insist on being literal, what do you make of this George Bush quote: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Now I don't believe Bush really intended to harm America (he did that accidentally). But he said that, so you must believe him, and consider him a terrorist. Why does Bush hate America?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/z8pvU1iyT3c&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/z8pvU1iyT3c&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
 
I'd bet this dog-breath would be a wonder at telling us how Durbin really didn't call out troops Nazies too.....

between him and mm, they could spin OBL into Mohammad himself if they had a mind to....
 
Save it clown....the word "dramatically" alters NOTHING about her statement....

The meaning is basically the same with or without it....exactly how proud she is is irrelevant....

You should read my post above about debating tactics of the poorly educated. If you understand it, you might benefit.

You have an inaccurate quote attribution in your sig; the line, "My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."

As Snopes points out, the attribution is false. The line was originally attributed to John McCain, as a joke.

The line is the intellectual property of the National Review. I've seen GunnyL bust others for copyright, so if you don't want any hassle, I'll give you a few minutes to remove it.
 
You should read my post above about debating tactics of the poorly educated. If you understand it, you might benefit.

You have an inaccurate quote attribution in your sig; the line, "My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."

As Snopes points out, the attribution is false. The line was originally attributed to John McCain, as a joke.

The line is the intellectual property of the National Review. I've seen GunnyL bust others for copyright, so if you don't want any hassle, I'll give you a few minutes to remove it.

Finally, an observant poster....you are the very first to comment on that sig line and its been there for awhile.....I'm gonna give you points for that one....
 

Forum List

Back
Top