First, it bothers me that this is being made into such a crime. The robo-call message going out from the McCain champaign implies that Obama worked with Ayers a terrorist, and implies that Obama may have helpped out with the wiring of the bombs. The wording of the robocall purpusely implies this message. Ayers is continually called and unrepentent terrorist who killed American’s and bombed Washington, the Pentagon and a judges house. I googled the dude and found out that Ayers does admit to these criminal acts as a way of protesting the Vietnam war, in a book he wrote on his life as a fugitive.If Ayers is a criminal, a terrorist, and antiAmerican, then how could Obama be a fellow boardmember with Ayers. Shouldn’t Ayers be in jail? Why isn’t Ayers in jail?
Ayers is not in jail because the Federal Governement broke laws in their efforts to convict him, and the case was dismissed by the courts.
Obama has said that when he learned about the crimes of Ayers he learned that these crimes took place when he was 8 years old, and he [Obama] assumed that after 40 years that Ayers had been rehabilitated.
Where would Obama get the idea that Ayers had been rehabilitated? Well, the City of Chicago named Ayers its Citizen of the Year in 1997. Maybe that was one reason Obama assumed Ayers had been rehabilitated.
Who else served on this Woods Fund of Chacago board with Ayers and Obama?
How about Presbyterian Minister Cynthia Campbell serves on the Board on the Woods Fund. Reverend Campbell got a Masters in Divinity from Harvard, and a doctorate from SMU. Reverend Campbell is the author of a book entitled A Multitude of Blessings: A Christian Approach to Religious Diversity. She is also the current President of the McCormick Theological Seminary. If Obama is pals around with terrorists then so does this minister. If your logical conclusion is that by serving on the Woods Foundation you pal around with terrorists, then so does Reverend Campbell, and if that is your logic then your logic doesn’t pass the test for common sense.
Add to this the fact that Walter and Leonore Annenber Foundation, the well known right wing Republican philanthropist provided $49.2 Million dollars in 1993 to fund the Chicago Annenberg Challenge which was co-authored by three individuals including William Ayres.. “So what?” you ask. Well, this foundation gave $49,000,000 grant to three men, one of whom is a domestic terrorist who bombed the Pentagon, Washington, a judges home, and killed Americans, and the widow, Leonora Annenber has also endorsed McCain and contributed $2300 to the McCain campaign in May 2008. Surely anyone who gives $49 million to a domestic terrorist would qualify as being a supporter of a domestic terrorist. If McCain takes money from someone who also gives money to domestic terrorist Ayers is McCain less guilty of complicity than Obama, or more?
Consider David Kearns - former Deputy Secretary of Education under Bush I; and former CEO of Xerox; Chairman of NASDC? Mr. Kearns served on the Annenber foundation and was part of the board granting that $49M grant to Bill Ayers. Kearns worked for and donated money to McCain’s Presidential campaign in 2000, and again in 2998. Surely anyone who serves on a foundation board gives $49 million to three guys, one of whom is a domestic terrorist would qualify as being a supporter of a domestic terrorist, wouldn’t they? If McCain takes money from someone who also gives money to domestic terrorist Ayers is McCain less guilty of complicity than Obama, or more?
Or how about Arnold Weber? Mr. Weber was the former member of Nixon Administration; the former President of Northwestern University and the University of Colorado as well as a Board Member of Tribune Company? . was also on that board that gave $49 million in grant money to three guys, one of whom was Bill Ayers, and Weber also donated to the McCain’s campaign. Surely anyone who serves on a foundation board gives $49 million to three guys, one of whom is a domestic terrorist would qualify as being a supporter of a domestic terrorist, wouldn’t they? If McCain takes money from someone who also gives money to domestic terrorist Ayers is McCain less guilty of complicity than Obama, or more?
If conservative respected Republicans can give grant money to three guys, one of whom is Bill Ayers, if the University of Illinois at Chicago hires him, if the mayor of Chicago works with Ayers, if the city makes him Citizen of the Year in 1997, then isn’t the allegations from McCain against Obama a tempest in a teapot?
So What Makes Congresswoman Bachmann So Crazy?
While watching Hardball on MSNBC I heard and interview between Chris Matthews and Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (Minn.). The whole interview was aggravating to me, first because there was a satellite delay so that Chris Matthews would ask a question and because Congresswoman Bachmann didn’t hear it and answer back fast enough he would ask his question again about the time the Congresswoman started talking so that we have both talking at once. I hate that. Despite the question-delay-response problem I did hear some stuff that bothered me.
Matthews was asking about Ayers and why that associate should matter. Congresswoman Bachmann then accused Barack Obama of holding “anti-American” sentiments.
If you read my other Search Wrap articles on Ayers you will see why I think the Ayers issue is a tempest in a tiny little teapot, but my concern here is not with the pros and cons of the Ayers issue, and more for the crazy beliefs of Congresswoman Bachmann.
Here are Congresswoman Bachmann’s words:
The news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look... at the views of the people in Congress and find out, 'Are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would love to see an expose like that. ~ Michelle Bachmann Republican
The Congresswoman doesn’t just have a different point of view, she opposes every point of view that does not jive with her own. Bachmann feels that the only American view is a conservitive Republican view, and anything less than ultra Republican conservitism is anti American. This strange prejudice is so strong that she even suspects other members of congress may be anti American. Why would she think a fellow member of Congress might be anti American? Because some of those elected officials are Democrats. In her mind, Bachmann feels that Democrat, and liberal equals anti American.
It would be nice to think that Bachmann was just a fanatical conservitive nut and that she was an isolated case, but that is just not the case.
On one blog I came across there is praise for the way George W. Bush dealt with people with liberal political views:
. . . a simple and elegant solution to this problem of having people who disagree with him: Don't let them in the door. He wisely makes everyone who attends these events sign a loyalty oath so that he can preach only to the choir. He kept the riff-raff out by filling these events with only loyal and pure Republicans. This is the genius mind of Karl Rove at its best. ~ found o the blog: Conservitives for American Values
Note that the suppression of opposing views is first attributed to President Bush, but by the end of the paragraph the credit goes to Karl Rove. These acts of suppressing other opinions is not the work of the President it is the work of the political opratives at the highest levels of the Republican Party.
Note: I do not believe that ALL Republicans share this view or condone this behavior, but clearly some do. The Conservitives for American Values does on to write in his blog:
If a liberal posts a comment it will be deleted. This is unless the liberal either leaves me opportunity to personal attack their extremism or gives me an easy way to reiterating a point I have made earlier. I hope liberals will remember this simple message when trying to comment to this blog: I control the terms of the debate, therefore I control the message. ~found o the blog: Conservitives for American Values
It is his [or her] blog so the blogster can write what s/he and delete whomever s/he wants, but the attitude concerns me. It is this attitude that unless you agree with me you should be stifled, throttled, your freedom of speech should be eliminated. Would these ultra conservative anti liberal no free speech people go so far as to imprison or execute those who dared to have a view different from theirs?
How many of these anti-free speech ultra conservatives are there? Are there enough liberal haters out there that I should fear for the safety of Barak Obama? Are there enough liberal haters out there that I should fear for the loss of my own basic freedoms or safety?
It would be unfair to say that Republicans are moving toward a form of American fascism. The word fascism is an incendiary word, and it is as wrong to brand conservatives as fascists as it would be to brand liberals as anti American, but the comments of Congresswoman Bachmann are fascist in nature.
What is Fascism
The word Fascism is one of those words we have heard so often that we feel we know what it means, but if pressed to define it we have trouble. Hitler was a fascist so usually we think anything anti-sematic or Hitler-like is fascist and if someone like Congresswoman Bachmann is not like Hitler and not an overt hater of Jews she must not be a fascist.
Consider all that is associated with the concept of fascism:
A Fascist sees problems within their cultural, the economic, in politics, and a sort of sweeping immorality, a social decline or decadence in their country, and they seek to , stomp out these threats through a kind of nationalism. Fascism always grows in a social soil of fear, and when you are afraid you naturally seek security. Security comes when you surround yourself with people who agree with you, think like you, and will protect the way of life you prefer.
When Congressman Bachmann suspects that there are anti-Americans in Congress, because there are Democrats in congress isn’t that an indication that she has fears any politcal points of view that are not like her own. When Bachman calls on the media to do an investigation to ferrot out the anti Americans in Congress she is sounding a lot like Joseph McCarthy and the House of UnAmerican Activities, and McCarthyism has been frequently associated with a form of American Fascism.
McCarthy’s committe used the term UnAmerican and that sounds a lot like AntiAmerican. The right to have freedom of speech implies that people will disagree. It was a fundamental right protected by our Constitution very early in its inception. This is suppose to be a country where people can see things differently. Difference is not antiAmerican.
I just can’t believe this was said by a member of Congress:
"The news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look... at the views of the people in Congress and find out, 'Are they pro-America or anti-America?'" Bachmann said. "I think people would love to see an expose like that."
No comments:
Post a Comment