Saturday, September 27, 2008
Debate Recap In a "Nutshell"
Here Are Some Of The Most Important Concerns After Last Night's Presidential Debate, Most Of Which I Spoke About At Greater Length In My Prior Video Blog:
1.) Barack Obama said that he wrote a letter of "concern" to the Treasury Secretary about the impending subprime lending meltdown. What Mr. Obama failed to mention is that he accepted a $125,000 donation from Fannie Mae to his Senate Campaign. This was the second largest donation made by the secondary mortgage behemoth (behind Senator Dodd of Connecticut). In fact, several Democrats in both the House and Senate received campaign contributions from Fannie in exchange for keeping the regulators away, ensuring that both Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac would receive special treatment in order to pad their profits from the artificial "mortgage boom" that resulted from subprime lending. As we all now know, that boom is now a bust, and we as the taxpayers may very well have to foot the bill.
2.) John McCain, at least THREE times, confronted Obama about over $900 million in "earmark funding" requests that Obama has made as a Senator, while also pointing out that Obama only withdrew these requests after he decided to run for president. Obama completely dodged the issue, at one time even attempting to change the subject to the special tax breaks he thinks McCain will give to the "rich." Obama never addressed the earmark issue.
3.) Barack Obama is proposing over $800 million dollars of federal government spending in NEW programs, while still claiming to be able to give the majority of us a tax cut. He has yet to withdraw this proposal, despite the fact that the federal "bailout" package, if approved, is expected to cost at least $700 BILLION. In the midst of continued wasteful spending by the government, and particularly in light of the current economic crisis, Obama had the audacity to claim that certain areas of the budget are still "underfunded." While John McCain insisted on a need for a spending freeze, Obama only spoke of actually INCREASING government spending.
4.) Obama still shows very little, if any, understanding of the threat posed by Iran to the safety and security of the entire free world. He said that he will sit down and talk with ANYONE if it would help our "national security" and did not even rule out a face to face meeting with Iranian President Ahmadinjad himself. This is absolutely ridiculous, because as long as Iran is governed by a radical, terrorist sponsoring, Islamic theocracy, attempting any type of diplomacy will be an exercise in futility, and will not be in the interests of our national security at all. Iran will actually feel emboldened if we have a president that their govenment is able to manipulate and lie to, making promises and then breaking those promises once we turn our backs. This is all that rogue states such as Iran (and others, muslim or not) have done in the past.
Why does Obama think Iran will act any differently this time around?
SUMMARY: While Barack Obama was very poised and articulate in his delivery (moreso than McCain I'll admit), he still shows very little understanding of the "big picture" when it comes to both Middle East issues, as well as our own nation's current financial crisis. He seems more interested in saying the right things in the "here and now" just to get himself elected, showing little willingness (if any) to make the tough decisions that are in the best interests of the American people and our allies abroad. It will take a lot more than charisma and good public speaking skills to effectively respond to such crucial issues. That is something that, unfortunately, Barack Obama does not understand.
1.) Barack Obama said that he wrote a letter of "concern" to the Treasury Secretary about the impending subprime lending meltdown. What Mr. Obama failed to mention is that he accepted a $125,000 donation from Fannie Mae to his Senate Campaign. This was the second largest donation made by the secondary mortgage behemoth (behind Senator Dodd of Connecticut). In fact, several Democrats in both the House and Senate received campaign contributions from Fannie in exchange for keeping the regulators away, ensuring that both Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac would receive special treatment in order to pad their profits from the artificial "mortgage boom" that resulted from subprime lending. As we all now know, that boom is now a bust, and we as the taxpayers may very well have to foot the bill.
2.) John McCain, at least THREE times, confronted Obama about over $900 million in "earmark funding" requests that Obama has made as a Senator, while also pointing out that Obama only withdrew these requests after he decided to run for president. Obama completely dodged the issue, at one time even attempting to change the subject to the special tax breaks he thinks McCain will give to the "rich." Obama never addressed the earmark issue.
3.) Barack Obama is proposing over $800 million dollars of federal government spending in NEW programs, while still claiming to be able to give the majority of us a tax cut. He has yet to withdraw this proposal, despite the fact that the federal "bailout" package, if approved, is expected to cost at least $700 BILLION. In the midst of continued wasteful spending by the government, and particularly in light of the current economic crisis, Obama had the audacity to claim that certain areas of the budget are still "underfunded." While John McCain insisted on a need for a spending freeze, Obama only spoke of actually INCREASING government spending.
4.) Obama still shows very little, if any, understanding of the threat posed by Iran to the safety and security of the entire free world. He said that he will sit down and talk with ANYONE if it would help our "national security" and did not even rule out a face to face meeting with Iranian President Ahmadinjad himself. This is absolutely ridiculous, because as long as Iran is governed by a radical, terrorist sponsoring, Islamic theocracy, attempting any type of diplomacy will be an exercise in futility, and will not be in the interests of our national security at all. Iran will actually feel emboldened if we have a president that their govenment is able to manipulate and lie to, making promises and then breaking those promises once we turn our backs. This is all that rogue states such as Iran (and others, muslim or not) have done in the past.
Why does Obama think Iran will act any differently this time around?
SUMMARY: While Barack Obama was very poised and articulate in his delivery (moreso than McCain I'll admit), he still shows very little understanding of the "big picture" when it comes to both Middle East issues, as well as our own nation's current financial crisis. He seems more interested in saying the right things in the "here and now" just to get himself elected, showing little willingness (if any) to make the tough decisions that are in the best interests of the American people and our allies abroad. It will take a lot more than charisma and good public speaking skills to effectively respond to such crucial issues. That is something that, unfortunately, Barack Obama does not understand.
Friday, September 26, 2008
No "Appeasement" For Evil Iran!
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/54879.html
Are you listening, Barack? This goes for Hamas as well, even though they gave you such a glowing endorsement!
Are you listening, Barack? This goes for Hamas as well, even though they gave you such a glowing endorsement!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
BRING BACK MICHAEL MILKEN!
In light of my last two posts on the subprime mortgage meltdown and the resulting fall out, let me say this:
If there were ever a time for legendary financier Michael Milken to be granted a full presidential pardon (which is now approaching 20 years overdue) and have his "lifetime" SEC ban lifted, that time is now.
Mike Milken revolutionized the financial world throughout the 1980's by using high-yield securities (which many banks had dismissed as "junk bonds") in order to provide high amounts of capital to entrepreneurs and companies that they otherwise never would have dreamed of being able to procure.
Since there's bound to be a lot of "junk" out there in the wake of the Fannie-Freddie fiasco, perhaps Milken is the only man in America who could figure out a way to use it in order to save the taxpayers from having to foot the bill for a massive government "bailout."
You can read about the legend himself (as well as all those ugly myths about him):
http://www.mikemilken.com
Casey
If there were ever a time for legendary financier Michael Milken to be granted a full presidential pardon (which is now approaching 20 years overdue) and have his "lifetime" SEC ban lifted, that time is now.
Mike Milken revolutionized the financial world throughout the 1980's by using high-yield securities (which many banks had dismissed as "junk bonds") in order to provide high amounts of capital to entrepreneurs and companies that they otherwise never would have dreamed of being able to procure.
Since there's bound to be a lot of "junk" out there in the wake of the Fannie-Freddie fiasco, perhaps Milken is the only man in America who could figure out a way to use it in order to save the taxpayers from having to foot the bill for a massive government "bailout."
You can read about the legend himself (as well as all those ugly myths about him):
http://www.mikemilken.com
Casey
Liberal "Capitalist Cronyism" and Housing Affirmative Action = SUBPRIME MELTDOWN
So now I shall continue from where I left off in my last blog. At about seven this morning, I followed my usual routine of walking into the gym with protein shake in one hand and today's copy of Investor's Business Daily in the other. The front page article in today's IBD, as well as a subsequent editorial, trace the steps, in very logical and sequential order, that ultimately led to the subprime mortgage lending meltdown that caused the current financial disaster in which our nation now finds itself.
Since the current situation on Wall Street can indeed be labeled a DISASTER (worthy in the eyes of our own treasury department of a $700 billion bailout), I'm reminded of the words announced during the opening credits of every episode of "Seconds From Disaster" on the National Geograhic channel:
"Disasters don't just happen . . . they're a chain of critical events. Unravel the clues, and count down those final . . . Seconds To Disaster."
The first "clue" to what caused the financial disaster in which we now find ourselves is found on the Fannie Mae website itself in the company's introduction booklet:
"At Fannie Mae, we exist to serve America's housing market. We procide a critical source of liquidity, stability (not anymore lol), and affordability to America's housing system . . . We provide our lenders the support and resources they need to run their business and make mortgage loans. We raise capital from Wall Street and from investors in the U.S. around th globe by selling our debt securities (uh-oh) and use the proceeds to buy mortgages and to finance housing in the United States. We also help lenders package the home loans they make into mortgage-backed securities, making the loans easier fr lenders to sell (s t starting to make sense). These activities expand and replenish the flow of mortgage capital across the nation, making mortgages more affordable and more available."
*Let's stop right here for a minute. All of this is a great idea and wlll work the way it is supposed to, ASSUMING THE MORTGAGES DON'T DEFAULT! Once the defaults start, take cover!!!
Now, onto Fannie's history:
"Fannie Mae was created in 1938 at the request of President Franklin Roosevelt. At the time, millions of Americans could not become homeowners, or risked losing their homes, for lack of a consiten supply of mortgage fnds throghout the United States. At first, Fannie Mae, as a government agency, was authorized to only buy Federal Housing Administration (FHA)- insured mortgages, thereby replenishing the supply of lendable money for these government-backed loans.
In 1968 (and here's where the problem REALLY starts), Fannie Mae became a privately-owned company operatng with private capital on a self-sustaining basis. Its role was expanded to buy mortgages beyond FHA-insured mortgages, thereby reaching out to a broader cross section of Americans."
*Despite the fact that Fannie became "privately-owned" in 1968, in order raise private capital from investors to enable it to operate, shares of the company had to be offered and traded on Wall Street. And what do investors always want? PROFIT! The more Fannie backed mortgages, the more profit for the company, the higher return to shareholders. Again, the engine of this machine will continue running smoothly AS LONG AS THE MORTGAGES DON'T DEFAULT.
Now here's where things REALLY start to fall into place for a turn for the worst:
"In 1992, major legisation was enacted to modernize (nice way of putting it) to modernize the regulatory framework applicable to the corporation. Regulatory responsibility was given to a newly created Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) within the office of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The new law included modernized capital standards and new affordable housing goals for Fannie Mae."
Unfortunately, in order to meet those "goals," Fannie eventually had to start backing mortgages to people who normally wouldn't even come CLOSE to qualifying. How was this accomplished? You got it- Subprime Lending!
Fannie Mae leaves out another very significant event in its history. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter, in one of his many brilliant economic moves, signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), placing increaed pressure on Fannie and Freddie to lend to minority groups who, at the time, represented a disproportionately low percentage of American homeowners. This legislation, in its own words proclaimed that:
"Regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered" and allowed greater regulatory oversight "to encourage (in other words require) such institutions to help meet the credit needs of local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such instiutions."
Banks with a low CRA ranking risked denial of applicaions to lend in new markets, open new deposit facilities, and merge with sister financial institutions, by the federal regulators such as the Federal Reserve Board. As you can imagine, the banking industry absolutely balked at this legislation from the moment it was introduced, fearing that this further tightrning of the regulatory "noose" would end up forcing financal institutions to do things that might threatenen their very livelhood and existence. Despite these protests, the act passed nonetheless, most likely with the expectation that it would remedy the "injustice" of the times. After all, wasn't the banks' protection ensured by the "safe and sound operation" provision found in the act? Perhaps in theory,
However, the IBD article states that in practice, this was hardly the case, starting from when the law was first implemented:
"The CRA forced banks and instiutions- then, far more heavily regulated than they are today- to make loans to poor, often uncreditworthy minority borrowers . . . Regulators didn't need to do much policing; they let that job fall to radical community groups . . . The commuity groups booked thousands of dollars in fees for every loan. And loans often required recipents to become active in radical causes- what's today called community organizing." Hmmmmm . . . sound familiar?
IBD proceeds to explain that during Bill Clinton's presidency, Fannie and Freddie began "buying up bad loans from banks, and securtizing them for sale on world markets. The seeds of the subprime meltdown were planted."
Furthermore, the CRA's "safe and sound" provision was further thrown own the window during the Clinton years. In the name of President Clinton's utopian and politically correct housing policies, he strengthened the CRA, and Fannie and Freddie gained even more leverage, effectively becoming "a government-run, privately owned home finance monopoly."
Of course, no good deed ever goes unrewarded. Fannie and Freddie demonstated their gratitude by providing generous campaign donations to Democrats in Congress who would protect them from much needed reforms that, if implemented, could have at least minimized the fallout we are now witnessing. Earlier this week, a bloomberg economist wrote, "We now know that many of the senators wo protected Fannie and Freddie, including BARRACK OBAMA, Hillary Clinton, and Christopher Dodd, received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years." This sounds to me like a modern day "Keating Five" scandal.
(As I mentioned in my prior post, Obama was second only to Senator Dodd, who heads the Senate Banking panel, in the amount of campaign contributions received from the two mortgage behemoths).
Tucked into the back pages of today's IBD was an editoral by Fred L. Smith, Jr., president of Competitive Enterprise Institute. He experienced first-hand the sheer futility of attempting to take on this "capitalist cronyism" when he testified in 2000 before the House Financial Services Committee. Smith recalls warning the committee that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's special privileges create a serious hazard to the market, to taxpayers, and to the economy . . . the rapid growth of their debt portfolios and the new risks Fanie and Freddie are taking on . . . will certainly increase the likelihood of a Fannie-Freddie default."
However, Smith's warnings fell on deaf ears, and were even ridiculed by some. One committee member, Pennsylvania Democrat Paul Kanjorski, dismissed his arguments as "almost fallacious." Another, New York Democrat Carolyn Maloney, didn't seem to grasp the seriousness of the situation because Fannie and Freddie, at that time had not yet needed to tap into their $2 billion credit line from the Treasury Department. As it stands now however, the department is now proposing to cough up over 300 times that amount (thus far) in an emergency "bailout." The situation has become so dire that I doubt Mr. Smith is in any mood to celebrate and jeer "told you so, told you so."
The precise problem with "crony capitalism" is that it is really not capitalism at all. In a genuine capitalist, free-market economy, the government allows the market to operate without excessive regulatory interference, and the natural rules of the market to dictate how things are done. In such an economy, people are taken seriously when they assert, as Mr. Smith attempted to, that tight government controls are suffocating the market's attempts to operate naturally. I guarantee you that were th houing market been allowed to operate in such a manner, there is no way on earth that $500,000 mortgages would have been reflexively doled out to families earning less than $50,000 per year.
A 1999 article in the New York Times reveals for us the root causes of the Fannie-Freddie fiasco (and thank you, Jared, for unearthing this article) :
"Fannie Mae, th nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stockholders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."
I just wonder how all of those stockholders feel now after losing all the money they invested in the artificially inflated "mortgage boom" when it finally went bust.
In the same New York Times article, then-Fannie CEO Franklin Raines proudly proclaimed, "Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's." When Raines left his post in 2005, he reportedly had taken in nearly $100 million for himself. I wonder how the stockholders feel about that.
And whatever happened to Mr. Raines himself, you ask? He's currently an advisor to the presidential campaign of- you guessed it- Barack Obama.
Since the current situation on Wall Street can indeed be labeled a DISASTER (worthy in the eyes of our own treasury department of a $700 billion bailout), I'm reminded of the words announced during the opening credits of every episode of "Seconds From Disaster" on the National Geograhic channel:
"Disasters don't just happen . . . they're a chain of critical events. Unravel the clues, and count down those final . . . Seconds To Disaster."
The first "clue" to what caused the financial disaster in which we now find ourselves is found on the Fannie Mae website itself in the company's introduction booklet:
"At Fannie Mae, we exist to serve America's housing market. We procide a critical source of liquidity, stability (not anymore lol), and affordability to America's housing system . . . We provide our lenders the support and resources they need to run their business and make mortgage loans. We raise capital from Wall Street and from investors in the U.S. around th globe by selling our debt securities (uh-oh) and use the proceeds to buy mortgages and to finance housing in the United States. We also help lenders package the home loans they make into mortgage-backed securities, making the loans easier fr lenders to sell (s t starting to make sense). These activities expand and replenish the flow of mortgage capital across the nation, making mortgages more affordable and more available."
*Let's stop right here for a minute. All of this is a great idea and wlll work the way it is supposed to, ASSUMING THE MORTGAGES DON'T DEFAULT! Once the defaults start, take cover!!!
Now, onto Fannie's history:
"Fannie Mae was created in 1938 at the request of President Franklin Roosevelt. At the time, millions of Americans could not become homeowners, or risked losing their homes, for lack of a consiten supply of mortgage fnds throghout the United States. At first, Fannie Mae, as a government agency, was authorized to only buy Federal Housing Administration (FHA)- insured mortgages, thereby replenishing the supply of lendable money for these government-backed loans.
In 1968 (and here's where the problem REALLY starts), Fannie Mae became a privately-owned company operatng with private capital on a self-sustaining basis. Its role was expanded to buy mortgages beyond FHA-insured mortgages, thereby reaching out to a broader cross section of Americans."
*Despite the fact that Fannie became "privately-owned" in 1968, in order raise private capital from investors to enable it to operate, shares of the company had to be offered and traded on Wall Street. And what do investors always want? PROFIT! The more Fannie backed mortgages, the more profit for the company, the higher return to shareholders. Again, the engine of this machine will continue running smoothly AS LONG AS THE MORTGAGES DON'T DEFAULT.
Now here's where things REALLY start to fall into place for a turn for the worst:
"In 1992, major legisation was enacted to modernize (nice way of putting it) to modernize the regulatory framework applicable to the corporation. Regulatory responsibility was given to a newly created Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) within the office of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The new law included modernized capital standards and new affordable housing goals for Fannie Mae."
Unfortunately, in order to meet those "goals," Fannie eventually had to start backing mortgages to people who normally wouldn't even come CLOSE to qualifying. How was this accomplished? You got it- Subprime Lending!
Fannie Mae leaves out another very significant event in its history. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter, in one of his many brilliant economic moves, signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), placing increaed pressure on Fannie and Freddie to lend to minority groups who, at the time, represented a disproportionately low percentage of American homeowners. This legislation, in its own words proclaimed that:
"Regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered" and allowed greater regulatory oversight "to encourage (in other words require) such institutions to help meet the credit needs of local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such instiutions."
Banks with a low CRA ranking risked denial of applicaions to lend in new markets, open new deposit facilities, and merge with sister financial institutions, by the federal regulators such as the Federal Reserve Board. As you can imagine, the banking industry absolutely balked at this legislation from the moment it was introduced, fearing that this further tightrning of the regulatory "noose" would end up forcing financal institutions to do things that might threatenen their very livelhood and existence. Despite these protests, the act passed nonetheless, most likely with the expectation that it would remedy the "injustice" of the times. After all, wasn't the banks' protection ensured by the "safe and sound operation" provision found in the act? Perhaps in theory,
However, the IBD article states that in practice, this was hardly the case, starting from when the law was first implemented:
"The CRA forced banks and instiutions- then, far more heavily regulated than they are today- to make loans to poor, often uncreditworthy minority borrowers . . . Regulators didn't need to do much policing; they let that job fall to radical community groups . . . The commuity groups booked thousands of dollars in fees for every loan. And loans often required recipents to become active in radical causes- what's today called community organizing." Hmmmmm . . . sound familiar?
IBD proceeds to explain that during Bill Clinton's presidency, Fannie and Freddie began "buying up bad loans from banks, and securtizing them for sale on world markets. The seeds of the subprime meltdown were planted."
Furthermore, the CRA's "safe and sound" provision was further thrown own the window during the Clinton years. In the name of President Clinton's utopian and politically correct housing policies, he strengthened the CRA, and Fannie and Freddie gained even more leverage, effectively becoming "a government-run, privately owned home finance monopoly."
Of course, no good deed ever goes unrewarded. Fannie and Freddie demonstated their gratitude by providing generous campaign donations to Democrats in Congress who would protect them from much needed reforms that, if implemented, could have at least minimized the fallout we are now witnessing. Earlier this week, a bloomberg economist wrote, "We now know that many of the senators wo protected Fannie and Freddie, including BARRACK OBAMA, Hillary Clinton, and Christopher Dodd, received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years." This sounds to me like a modern day "Keating Five" scandal.
(As I mentioned in my prior post, Obama was second only to Senator Dodd, who heads the Senate Banking panel, in the amount of campaign contributions received from the two mortgage behemoths).
Tucked into the back pages of today's IBD was an editoral by Fred L. Smith, Jr., president of Competitive Enterprise Institute. He experienced first-hand the sheer futility of attempting to take on this "capitalist cronyism" when he testified in 2000 before the House Financial Services Committee. Smith recalls warning the committee that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's special privileges create a serious hazard to the market, to taxpayers, and to the economy . . . the rapid growth of their debt portfolios and the new risks Fanie and Freddie are taking on . . . will certainly increase the likelihood of a Fannie-Freddie default."
However, Smith's warnings fell on deaf ears, and were even ridiculed by some. One committee member, Pennsylvania Democrat Paul Kanjorski, dismissed his arguments as "almost fallacious." Another, New York Democrat Carolyn Maloney, didn't seem to grasp the seriousness of the situation because Fannie and Freddie, at that time had not yet needed to tap into their $2 billion credit line from the Treasury Department. As it stands now however, the department is now proposing to cough up over 300 times that amount (thus far) in an emergency "bailout." The situation has become so dire that I doubt Mr. Smith is in any mood to celebrate and jeer "told you so, told you so."
The precise problem with "crony capitalism" is that it is really not capitalism at all. In a genuine capitalist, free-market economy, the government allows the market to operate without excessive regulatory interference, and the natural rules of the market to dictate how things are done. In such an economy, people are taken seriously when they assert, as Mr. Smith attempted to, that tight government controls are suffocating the market's attempts to operate naturally. I guarantee you that were th houing market been allowed to operate in such a manner, there is no way on earth that $500,000 mortgages would have been reflexively doled out to families earning less than $50,000 per year.
A 1999 article in the New York Times reveals for us the root causes of the Fannie-Freddie fiasco (and thank you, Jared, for unearthing this article) :
"Fannie Mae, th nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stockholders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."
I just wonder how all of those stockholders feel now after losing all the money they invested in the artificially inflated "mortgage boom" when it finally went bust.
In the same New York Times article, then-Fannie CEO Franklin Raines proudly proclaimed, "Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's." When Raines left his post in 2005, he reportedly had taken in nearly $100 million for himself. I wonder how the stockholders feel about that.
And whatever happened to Mr. Raines himself, you ask? He's currently an advisor to the presidential campaign of- you guessed it- Barack Obama.
Obama's "Backscratches" From Fannie and Freddie
As all of you have no doubt heard, the "ripple effect" from the subprime mortgage crisis has sent our nation into financial turmoil. The turmoil extends well beyond the victims of predatory lending (many of whom are poor and/or minority) who lost their homes to foreclosure once it became apparent that they were given mortgages they couldn't afford. On a much grander scale, though, countless bonds and securities had been issued that were "guaranteed" by these subprime mortgages. As long as these mortgages didn't default, everything would be just fine.
You don't need to be a financial wizard to know that attempting to issue bonds and securities without something to "guarantee" them is a futile waste of time. In this case, the problem was that the "guarantee" was guaranteed to fail. Nonetheless, we have seen once again that the love of the almighty dollar, along with the insatiable desire for instant gratification, often inhibits otherwise reasonable people from thinking in a sensible and forward-looking manner.
Once "shit hit the fan" and monthly payments on these mortgages began slyrocketing when the subprime period ended, mounds and mounds of them began to default. The "guarantee" was no longer, and you know the rest of the sad story. All of these bonds and securities became virtually worthless, and the Treasury is now proposing a nearly $700 billion emergency "bailout" This is an absolutely HORRIBLE proposal that has no place in a free market economy, but I'll go more into that in another blog.
So now, of course, the finger pointing has commenced. Barack Obama, as you'd expect, blames "Bush-McCain" economic policies as the cause of this crisis. He's once again attempting to dupe Americans into believing that the two are "joined at the hip." I find it quite odd, however, that Obama fails to articulate precisely which of these policies he thinks got us into this mess. Typical Obama- lots of grandstanding, but nothing to back it up.
Perhaps this is because deep down, Barack Obama knows that it is Democrats such as himself who were the catalysts for this disaster, as they consistently thwarted any efforts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two "giants" of the secondary mortgage market. These Democrats, including Obama, quickly downplayed prophecies of "impending doom" when warned numerous times that millions of Americans were being generously bequeathed with mortgages they couldn't afford.
Why would someone like Obama want to "bulldoze" such desperately needed reforms of Fannie and Freddie? Well, perhaps one reason why is because Obama received over $125,000 in donations for his Senate campaign from them. In fact, only Chris Dodd, the Democratic senator from Connecticut and head of the senate baking committee, received more in campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Furthermore, two former CEOs of these companies are advisors to Obama's presidential campaign.
Renowned socialist financier George Soros has dubbed our current financial disaster as a "crisis of capitalism" due to a lack of strict government regulation of the markets (well of course, being a socialist, he'd blame just about any problem on this). However, perhaps Mr. Soros is correct, only the blame properly rests with a different type of capitalism than he's thinking of. Perhaps it's the "crony capitalism" within the Democratic party, which led prominent Democrats in our Congress to impede any credible attempts to fix both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
So how in the world did we get to this point? Stay tuned for my next blog . . .
You don't need to be a financial wizard to know that attempting to issue bonds and securities without something to "guarantee" them is a futile waste of time. In this case, the problem was that the "guarantee" was guaranteed to fail. Nonetheless, we have seen once again that the love of the almighty dollar, along with the insatiable desire for instant gratification, often inhibits otherwise reasonable people from thinking in a sensible and forward-looking manner.
Once "shit hit the fan" and monthly payments on these mortgages began slyrocketing when the subprime period ended, mounds and mounds of them began to default. The "guarantee" was no longer, and you know the rest of the sad story. All of these bonds and securities became virtually worthless, and the Treasury is now proposing a nearly $700 billion emergency "bailout" This is an absolutely HORRIBLE proposal that has no place in a free market economy, but I'll go more into that in another blog.
So now, of course, the finger pointing has commenced. Barack Obama, as you'd expect, blames "Bush-McCain" economic policies as the cause of this crisis. He's once again attempting to dupe Americans into believing that the two are "joined at the hip." I find it quite odd, however, that Obama fails to articulate precisely which of these policies he thinks got us into this mess. Typical Obama- lots of grandstanding, but nothing to back it up.
Perhaps this is because deep down, Barack Obama knows that it is Democrats such as himself who were the catalysts for this disaster, as they consistently thwarted any efforts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two "giants" of the secondary mortgage market. These Democrats, including Obama, quickly downplayed prophecies of "impending doom" when warned numerous times that millions of Americans were being generously bequeathed with mortgages they couldn't afford.
Why would someone like Obama want to "bulldoze" such desperately needed reforms of Fannie and Freddie? Well, perhaps one reason why is because Obama received over $125,000 in donations for his Senate campaign from them. In fact, only Chris Dodd, the Democratic senator from Connecticut and head of the senate baking committee, received more in campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Furthermore, two former CEOs of these companies are advisors to Obama's presidential campaign.
Renowned socialist financier George Soros has dubbed our current financial disaster as a "crisis of capitalism" due to a lack of strict government regulation of the markets (well of course, being a socialist, he'd blame just about any problem on this). However, perhaps Mr. Soros is correct, only the blame properly rests with a different type of capitalism than he's thinking of. Perhaps it's the "crony capitalism" within the Democratic party, which led prominent Democrats in our Congress to impede any credible attempts to fix both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
So how in the world did we get to this point? Stay tuned for my next blog . . .
Boy Suspended From School For Anti-Obama Shirt
Don't we still have a First Amendment?
http://news.aol.com/article/boy-suspended-over-anti-obama-shirt/185646?icid=100214839x1210042140x1200621296
Someone tell me how the shirt was "disruptive to the educational environment." Most likely, it simply offended a bunch of shameful and incompetent pro-union public school teachers (I used to work alongside these types).
I'm sorry, but the law requires a much more compelling interest in order to outweigh a student's constitutional rights. The boy's father says he plans to sue, and I say "go for it." This is the exact case I'd love to take on once I get my law degree.
http://news.aol.com/article/boy-suspended-over-anti-obama-shirt/185646?icid=100214839x1210042140x1200621296
Someone tell me how the shirt was "disruptive to the educational environment." Most likely, it simply offended a bunch of shameful and incompetent pro-union public school teachers (I used to work alongside these types).
I'm sorry, but the law requires a much more compelling interest in order to outweigh a student's constitutional rights. The boy's father says he plans to sue, and I say "go for it." This is the exact case I'd love to take on once I get my law degree.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
OBAMA AND AYERS: From TalkStraight.org
Obama and Ayers: Radical, Political Brothers
This was written by Glenn Chappell and the TalkStraight.org Staff contributing
___________________________________________
Barack Obama has a big secret. He has major ties to William Ayers.
Over the course of seven years, Ayers found his way into nearly every facet of Obama’s political and personal career. Yet, today, Obama doesn’t talk about it, the media doesn’t care about it, and most Americans don’t know about it.
Unfortunately for The Celebrity, the facts still remain.
To understand Bill Ayers is to understand the influences that shaped Obama’s early political career. The radicals and demagogues representing the Chicago establishment would make most Americans cringe. Yet, those very people constituted the voices and ideals that formed Obama’s own political education. The politics of the Chicago political establishment are a far cry from the politics of hope and change. Yet, as his associations with Ayers and other Chicago radicals show, Obama was a quick study in the ways of machine politics.
There is no better example of Obama’s political influences than Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Therefore, a brief review of the facts concerning the Obama-Ayers relationship is in order.
The Life of William Ayers
William Ayers is currently a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. [1] However, Ayers earned his place in history many years before he began his current job. During the Vietnam War, Ayers first became involved with a radical anti-war group known as the Students for a Democratic Society. During his involvement with this extremist faction, Ayers quickly became a leader among its ranks. Using his newfound power, he began to mobilize the SDS into a force for violent protest. [2]
In 1969, Ayers left the mostly-pacifist SDS to join the newly founded Weather Underground Organization. During the SDS convention of that year, Ayers was one of 11 SDS members to sign on to the foundation of the Weather Underground. This group was founded on the principle of immediate and total revolution against the government of the United States. [3] The Weather Underground, of which Ayers was a vital member, launched their first assault on October 8, 1969, in Ayers’ hometown. This event, entitled ‘Days of Rage,’ was a staged riot organized by Ayers and other Weathermen.
To begin their demonstration, the Weathermen detonated a bomb that destroyed a statue dedicated to fallen police officers. By placing the bomb between the statue’s legs, they ensured its destruction and caused pieces of the statue to be hurled in all directions. The blast blew out 100 windows and sent pieces of metal onto a nearby freeway. Not content to rest on their laurels, the Weathermen would again destory the rebuilt statue less then one year later. [3]
The ‘Days of Rage’ riot continued into that evening, with Weathermen ransacking countless buildings and assaulting dozens of police. Authorities were forced to eventually use tear gas and other weaponry to break up the demonstration. Following this event, the Weather Underground decided to ratchet up their radical attacks. They declared a ’state of war’ on the United States government, and planned another bombing on an Army officer’s club in New Jersey. Although the plot was foiled, the Weathermen made their intentions very clear. According to Brian Flanagan (one of Ayers’ close personal friends and fellow Weatherman leader), the plot was intended to be “the most horrific hit the United States government had ever suffered on its territory.” [4]
On February 16, 1970, Bill Ayers was directly involved in the detonation of a bomb that killed one San Francisco police officer and critically wounded another. According to an FBI informant within the Weather Underground organization, Ayers knew the precise location and contents of the fatal bomb, which was constructed of staples and lead bullets as shrapnel. According to the secret agent, Ayers’ wife, Bernardine Dohrn, actually constructed and detonated the bomb. The agent testified that Ayers’ was either present at the bombing or had at least helped in the planning of the attack, due to his extensive knowledge and familiarity with the specifics of the plot. [5] In fact, David Freddoso argued this year that Ayers only escaped prosecution as a result of FBI management of the case. [6]
Ayers did not end his Weather Underground career with his involvement in this horrific murder. As a member of the organization’s Central Committee, Ayers helped oversee a bombing in New York City at the home of a state Supreme Court Justice. This bombing was launched in response to the judge’s presiding over the trial of several Black Panther members accused of planning multiple bombings of New York City public landmarks. At the site of the bomb, Weathermen painted an ominous phrase on the judge’s home: “FREE THE PANTHER 21; THE VIET CONG HAVE WON; KILL THE PIGS.” Ayers also helped in planning several other bombings in New York, including an attack on a military recruiting facility and two police cars. [7]
A few months later, Ayers’ current girlfriend, along with two other Weather Underground members, were killed while constructing a massive bomb in New York. [8] This rose the Weathermen’s body count to four dead and one seriously wounded. However, the Weathermen did not stop after the death of their comrades.
They destroyed another police station in June 1970. [2] This attack served as a warm-up act for their greatest catastrophe. After two years of planning, the Weathermen (with Ayers heavily involved in the planning details) celebrated Communist leader Ho Chi Minh’s birthday by detonating a huge bomb in the ladies’ bathroom on the first floor of the Pentagon. This attack caused burn damage and flooding, and resulted in the destruction of sensitive equipment and a multitude of classified files. Following this direct assault on their command center, the United States government placed the Weather Underground Organization on their Top Ten Terrorist Organizations list. [9]
Following this brutal attack, the organization began to lose the last of its remaining members, and Ayers and Dorhn went into hiding. They would turn themselves in in 1980, but were never convicted of any crimes, despite the fact that their joint involvement resulted in the death of a police officer. [10]
Ayers: 30 Years Later
After several books, documentaries and commentaries on the Weather Underground, some might think that Ayers would have time to reconsider his actions during these turbulent times. While many former Weathermen have issued public apologies and expressed regret for their actions, Ayers remains defiant to this day. In his famed September 11, 2001 New York Times article, Ayers told his interviewer the following:
I don’t regret setting bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough…I don’t want to discount the possibility [of doing it again].” [11]
Ayers further explained his lack of regret on his own personal blog in 2006:
“I can’t think of a single action I took against the government and its murderous assault in Southeast Asia that I regret. Perhaps you can point to something in particular that you think I should regret, and then apologize for.” [12]
Ayers’ extremism is not confined to his days as a Weatherman. In 2006, he attended an education forum in Venezuela, in the presence of Hugo Chavez. He seemed to think rather highly of Mr. Chavez’s administration, and praised him directly during his speech:
“This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez.”
He concluded his oration by lavishing praise on the “beacon of the world” in a forceful manner:
“Viva Mission Sucre!
Viva Presidente Chavez!
Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana!
Hasta la Victoria Siempre!” [13]
In contrast, he has accused President Bush and John McCain of committing war crimes. He again shares his views concerning McCain on his own personal website: “the President and his Cabinet…and the reactionary front runner for the Republican presidential nomination…committed war crimes that they’ve refused to account for.” [13]
It appears that Ayers’ belief in President Chavez is much stronger than that of John McCain.
Of course, everyone knows what Ayers was doing while McCain sat in a prison cell in Hanoi. It is safe to say that the two shared radically different views of patriotism in America.
In summary, Bill Ayers’ life has been a narrative of violent, radical, extremist, socialist activism.
Ayers and Obama
After learning of Bill Ayers’ radical history, one might question Ayers’ relevance to the 2008 presidential campaign.
The answer is frightening.
Ayers has deep-seated and longstanding ties to the political and career aspirations of Barack Obama. While the mainstream media have refused to cover this major influence upon Obama’s politics, the facts are undeniable. Hugh Hewitt, a long time journalist and blogger, summed up this unsettling connection of Obama’s quite succintly:
”It is incredible that MSM has not covered or investigated this story or the related stories of Obama’s deep and long associations with Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright. Never has so little been written about so large a series of stories about a modern presidential candidate.” [14]
No one knows exactly when or how Obama met Ayers. However, records show that Ayers had a prominent role in Obama’s political career from the beginning. He was most likely introduced to Ayers and Dohrn during the early days of his 1995 campaign for Illinois state Senate. Alice Palmer, the incumbent senator, had announced that she would not be seeking re-election to her seat, and endorsed Obama as her successor. It was shortly thereafter that Obama’s carefully concealed relationship with Ayers began.
In late 1995, Palmer introduced Obama to her most liberal supporters during a fundraiser at the home of Ayers and Dohrn. It is clear from eyewitness testimony that the former Weathermen were already enthusiastic about this new face in the Chicago political scene. Maria Warren, a fellow Chicago liberal, was among those attending this meeting and summed it up in 2005:
“When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.” [11]
There are many serious questions that remain about these early connections between Obama and the Weathermen. Why were Ayers and Dorhn so enthusiastic about Obama’s candidacy? How long had they known Obama before this meeting? Why did Obama choose to begin his candidacy at their home? The answers can be found in Obama’s only executive experience to date: as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
In 1995, shortly before Obama’s entrance into politics, Ayers apparently handpicked Obama to lead a foundation he founded, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The Challenge (known as the CAC), was created to provide grants to educational initiatives and community organizers. No one-save Ayers and Obama himself-knows why Ayers and the executive board selected Obama for this paid directorial position, or how long the two knew each other prior to Obama’s appointment.
At that time, Obama was an unproven, unknown, and inexperienced individual with no apparent qualifications to lead a major education initiative. While Obama’s campaign has denied Ayers’ influence in the CAC, Stanley Kurtz has shown that Ayers, as the foundation’s organizer, was in fact the most powerful member of the CAC’s executive board. [15]
Under Obama’s leadership, the CAC routinely and consistently funded those initiatives that were personally selected or led by Ayers. This resulted in multiple conflict-of-interest complaints against the CAC, due to Ayers’ influence within the organization. According to Kurtz, the CAC reflected Ayers’ views that children should be educated through the lens of political activism, and funded numerous extremist organizations dedicated to the furtherance of these viewpoints. He described CAC’s funding as follows:
“In works like “City Kids, City Teachers” and “Teaching the Personal and the Political,” Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression…CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with “external partners,” which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).” [16]
According to the CAC’s organizational charter, Obama, as the organization’s president, worked closely with Ayers, who served as Director of Education. During their partnership, the CAC trafficked more than $100 million to various educational associations, many of which were favored by Ayers and Dorhn. Even after Ayers chose to reduce his own role within the CAC, Obama continued to chair the foundation through 1999. While the CAC would expand its funding to other organizations, many of Ayers’ pet projects received funding throughout Obama’s tenure as president of the Challenge. [15]
Some might be tempted to praise Obama’s leadership in heading up such a lucrative educational foundation. However, further review of his tenure shows that the CAC failed miserably to achieve its own goals. CAC-funded schools did not see any serious improvement in test scores, graduation rates, or other demonstrable metrics. In short, Obama’s only executive experience resulted in a multi-million dollar failure. [17]
Obama’s ties to Ayers did not end with their cooperation on the CAC. Obama and Ayers were both chosen to sit on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charitable organization. They served together for two years, while Obama spent a total of nine years on the board (Ayers is still a board member). It is important to note that the Woods Fund donated money to Trinity United Church-Obama’s and Reverend Wright’s home church-and ACORN during Obama’s membership. [18]
In addition to their service together on the Woods board, Obama and Ayers reunited periodically over the next several years, attending two education seminars together (in 1997 and 2002). [19] In 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s state senate campaign. [20]
Obama’s Response
While Obama and Ayers spent more than seven years together in various capacities, Obama predictably denied his association with Ayers. At first, he downplayed Ayers’ terrorist activities, even calling him “mainstream” on his campaign website. [21] When this did not work, he simply denied the seriousness of his connections to Ayers. During a democratic debate last year, he made the following statement in regard to this Ayers association:
“This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense.” [19]
This excuse by Obama blatantly ignores his repeated collaborations with Ayers, and fails to explain why Ayers selected him to lead the organization he founded. It is important to note that Obama made this statement many months ago, prior to new discoveries which have only served to magnify his longstanding partnership with this terrorist. Today, he simply refuses to talk about his old friend.
Despite all of the information available concerning Obama’s ties to Ayers, one mystery that remains is the unflagging loyalty Ayers has shown to Obama’s political career. It is of consequence to note that Ayers, on his blog, repeatedly and harshly criticizes the Democratic Party. He calls them “cowardly” and labels them as “one of the two major pro-Imperialist parties in the U.S.” [22] The first question one might consider immediately is why Ayers is such an adamant supporter of Obama, especially given his disagreement with Obama’s own party. Only a few people know the answer to this question. Ayers and Obama are among them. But they are not talking.
During his nomination acceptance speech, Obama criticized John McCain for making patriotism the centerpiece of his campaign. He told McCain that “we all put country first.” Yet, in 2001, Obama’s friend posed for a photoshoot standing proudly on top of a crumpled American flag. Ironically, the article accompanying these pictures ran the week before the September 11 attacks.
That same week, Ayers responsed to a question about America being a fair and just country. On the notion that America is a great nation, Ayers responded by saying that the very idea “makes me want to puke.” [23] Bill Ayers was one of Barack Obama’s closest political allies in Chicago. Obama only denounced Ayers after being confronted with his friendship during his presidential campaign. That’s not putting country first. That’s putting Barack first.
Just like Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko, Emil Jones, Michael Pfleger, and other radicals, Obama’s link to Ayers shows that his closest political associations represent a violent radicalism far beyond mainstream American values. Ayers even describes himself as “a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist.” [24]
While Obama campaigns as a great uniter and a transformational, post-political visionary, his own record shows that his political views were formed by an astounding array of extremist hatemongers. Obama’s associations show repeated and inseparable links to the corrupt, scandal-ridden, racially-driven politics of division. He wasn’t ready to lead the Annenberg Challenge, and he’s not ready to lead the United States. In short, the politics of Barack Obama is change we cannot afford.
Sources:
[1] http://billayers.wordpress.com/biography-history/
[2] Bill Ayers. Fugitive Days: A Memoir
[3] Avrich. The Haymarket Tragedy, p. 431.
[4] http://www.democracynow.org/2003/8/21/ex_weather_underground_member_kathy_boudin
[5] Grathwohl, Larry, “as told to Frank Reagan”, Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen, Arlington House Publishers, New Rochelle, New York, 1976 pp 168, 169, ISBN 0870003350
[6] http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ODVlZTZlM2M5NTMxMzllMjJkODVkNzQ3YTFjMTY0NzE=
[7] Fire in the Night: The Weathermen tried to kill my family. City Journal April 30, 2008
[8] http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0E14FF3C5A157493C5A91788D85F448785F9
[9] Jacobs, The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground, 1997.
[10] Terry, Don (Chicago Tribune staff reporter, “The calm after the storm”, Chicago Tribune Magazine, p 10, September 16, 2001, June 8, 2008.
[11] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
[12] http://billayers.wordpress.com/2006/09/
[13] http://billayers.wordpress.com/2006/11/
[14] http://townhall.com/blog/g/bca4e228-1411-45da-a8ec-8820cc8b305e
[15] http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTViMGRmMmYxZTgwZTFjYmFjODU5YzM4Y2MwM2ViMjY=&w=MA==
[16] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
[17] http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDQ0MDBmMjQwZmYxYzhlZjc3ZGFkZjlkOWJlMTk2MWE=
18. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obama_and_the_woods_fund_of_ch.html
19. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/18/nation/na-radicals18
20. http://www.nysun.com/national/leftist-with-obama-ties-speaks-at-suny/71716
21. http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/04/17/fact_check_on_clinton_attacks.php
22. http://billayers.wordpress.com/2007/05/
23. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=267
24. Chepesiuk, Ron, “Sixties Radicals, Then and Now: Candid Conversations With Those Who Shaped the Era”, McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers: Jefferson, North Carolina, 1995, “Chapter 5: Bill Ayers: Radical Educator”, p. 102
This was written by Glenn Chappell and the TalkStraight.org Staff contributing
___________________________________________
Barack Obama has a big secret. He has major ties to William Ayers.
Over the course of seven years, Ayers found his way into nearly every facet of Obama’s political and personal career. Yet, today, Obama doesn’t talk about it, the media doesn’t care about it, and most Americans don’t know about it.
Unfortunately for The Celebrity, the facts still remain.
To understand Bill Ayers is to understand the influences that shaped Obama’s early political career. The radicals and demagogues representing the Chicago establishment would make most Americans cringe. Yet, those very people constituted the voices and ideals that formed Obama’s own political education. The politics of the Chicago political establishment are a far cry from the politics of hope and change. Yet, as his associations with Ayers and other Chicago radicals show, Obama was a quick study in the ways of machine politics.
There is no better example of Obama’s political influences than Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Therefore, a brief review of the facts concerning the Obama-Ayers relationship is in order.
The Life of William Ayers
William Ayers is currently a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. [1] However, Ayers earned his place in history many years before he began his current job. During the Vietnam War, Ayers first became involved with a radical anti-war group known as the Students for a Democratic Society. During his involvement with this extremist faction, Ayers quickly became a leader among its ranks. Using his newfound power, he began to mobilize the SDS into a force for violent protest. [2]
In 1969, Ayers left the mostly-pacifist SDS to join the newly founded Weather Underground Organization. During the SDS convention of that year, Ayers was one of 11 SDS members to sign on to the foundation of the Weather Underground. This group was founded on the principle of immediate and total revolution against the government of the United States. [3] The Weather Underground, of which Ayers was a vital member, launched their first assault on October 8, 1969, in Ayers’ hometown. This event, entitled ‘Days of Rage,’ was a staged riot organized by Ayers and other Weathermen.
To begin their demonstration, the Weathermen detonated a bomb that destroyed a statue dedicated to fallen police officers. By placing the bomb between the statue’s legs, they ensured its destruction and caused pieces of the statue to be hurled in all directions. The blast blew out 100 windows and sent pieces of metal onto a nearby freeway. Not content to rest on their laurels, the Weathermen would again destory the rebuilt statue less then one year later. [3]
The ‘Days of Rage’ riot continued into that evening, with Weathermen ransacking countless buildings and assaulting dozens of police. Authorities were forced to eventually use tear gas and other weaponry to break up the demonstration. Following this event, the Weather Underground decided to ratchet up their radical attacks. They declared a ’state of war’ on the United States government, and planned another bombing on an Army officer’s club in New Jersey. Although the plot was foiled, the Weathermen made their intentions very clear. According to Brian Flanagan (one of Ayers’ close personal friends and fellow Weatherman leader), the plot was intended to be “the most horrific hit the United States government had ever suffered on its territory.” [4]
On February 16, 1970, Bill Ayers was directly involved in the detonation of a bomb that killed one San Francisco police officer and critically wounded another. According to an FBI informant within the Weather Underground organization, Ayers knew the precise location and contents of the fatal bomb, which was constructed of staples and lead bullets as shrapnel. According to the secret agent, Ayers’ wife, Bernardine Dohrn, actually constructed and detonated the bomb. The agent testified that Ayers’ was either present at the bombing or had at least helped in the planning of the attack, due to his extensive knowledge and familiarity with the specifics of the plot. [5] In fact, David Freddoso argued this year that Ayers only escaped prosecution as a result of FBI management of the case. [6]
Ayers did not end his Weather Underground career with his involvement in this horrific murder. As a member of the organization’s Central Committee, Ayers helped oversee a bombing in New York City at the home of a state Supreme Court Justice. This bombing was launched in response to the judge’s presiding over the trial of several Black Panther members accused of planning multiple bombings of New York City public landmarks. At the site of the bomb, Weathermen painted an ominous phrase on the judge’s home: “FREE THE PANTHER 21; THE VIET CONG HAVE WON; KILL THE PIGS.” Ayers also helped in planning several other bombings in New York, including an attack on a military recruiting facility and two police cars. [7]
A few months later, Ayers’ current girlfriend, along with two other Weather Underground members, were killed while constructing a massive bomb in New York. [8] This rose the Weathermen’s body count to four dead and one seriously wounded. However, the Weathermen did not stop after the death of their comrades.
They destroyed another police station in June 1970. [2] This attack served as a warm-up act for their greatest catastrophe. After two years of planning, the Weathermen (with Ayers heavily involved in the planning details) celebrated Communist leader Ho Chi Minh’s birthday by detonating a huge bomb in the ladies’ bathroom on the first floor of the Pentagon. This attack caused burn damage and flooding, and resulted in the destruction of sensitive equipment and a multitude of classified files. Following this direct assault on their command center, the United States government placed the Weather Underground Organization on their Top Ten Terrorist Organizations list. [9]
Following this brutal attack, the organization began to lose the last of its remaining members, and Ayers and Dorhn went into hiding. They would turn themselves in in 1980, but were never convicted of any crimes, despite the fact that their joint involvement resulted in the death of a police officer. [10]
Ayers: 30 Years Later
After several books, documentaries and commentaries on the Weather Underground, some might think that Ayers would have time to reconsider his actions during these turbulent times. While many former Weathermen have issued public apologies and expressed regret for their actions, Ayers remains defiant to this day. In his famed September 11, 2001 New York Times article, Ayers told his interviewer the following:
I don’t regret setting bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough…I don’t want to discount the possibility [of doing it again].” [11]
Ayers further explained his lack of regret on his own personal blog in 2006:
“I can’t think of a single action I took against the government and its murderous assault in Southeast Asia that I regret. Perhaps you can point to something in particular that you think I should regret, and then apologize for.” [12]
Ayers’ extremism is not confined to his days as a Weatherman. In 2006, he attended an education forum in Venezuela, in the presence of Hugo Chavez. He seemed to think rather highly of Mr. Chavez’s administration, and praised him directly during his speech:
“This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez.”
He concluded his oration by lavishing praise on the “beacon of the world” in a forceful manner:
“Viva Mission Sucre!
Viva Presidente Chavez!
Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana!
Hasta la Victoria Siempre!” [13]
In contrast, he has accused President Bush and John McCain of committing war crimes. He again shares his views concerning McCain on his own personal website: “the President and his Cabinet…and the reactionary front runner for the Republican presidential nomination…committed war crimes that they’ve refused to account for.” [13]
It appears that Ayers’ belief in President Chavez is much stronger than that of John McCain.
Of course, everyone knows what Ayers was doing while McCain sat in a prison cell in Hanoi. It is safe to say that the two shared radically different views of patriotism in America.
In summary, Bill Ayers’ life has been a narrative of violent, radical, extremist, socialist activism.
Ayers and Obama
After learning of Bill Ayers’ radical history, one might question Ayers’ relevance to the 2008 presidential campaign.
The answer is frightening.
Ayers has deep-seated and longstanding ties to the political and career aspirations of Barack Obama. While the mainstream media have refused to cover this major influence upon Obama’s politics, the facts are undeniable. Hugh Hewitt, a long time journalist and blogger, summed up this unsettling connection of Obama’s quite succintly:
”It is incredible that MSM has not covered or investigated this story or the related stories of Obama’s deep and long associations with Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright. Never has so little been written about so large a series of stories about a modern presidential candidate.” [14]
No one knows exactly when or how Obama met Ayers. However, records show that Ayers had a prominent role in Obama’s political career from the beginning. He was most likely introduced to Ayers and Dohrn during the early days of his 1995 campaign for Illinois state Senate. Alice Palmer, the incumbent senator, had announced that she would not be seeking re-election to her seat, and endorsed Obama as her successor. It was shortly thereafter that Obama’s carefully concealed relationship with Ayers began.
In late 1995, Palmer introduced Obama to her most liberal supporters during a fundraiser at the home of Ayers and Dohrn. It is clear from eyewitness testimony that the former Weathermen were already enthusiastic about this new face in the Chicago political scene. Maria Warren, a fellow Chicago liberal, was among those attending this meeting and summed it up in 2005:
“When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.” [11]
There are many serious questions that remain about these early connections between Obama and the Weathermen. Why were Ayers and Dorhn so enthusiastic about Obama’s candidacy? How long had they known Obama before this meeting? Why did Obama choose to begin his candidacy at their home? The answers can be found in Obama’s only executive experience to date: as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
In 1995, shortly before Obama’s entrance into politics, Ayers apparently handpicked Obama to lead a foundation he founded, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The Challenge (known as the CAC), was created to provide grants to educational initiatives and community organizers. No one-save Ayers and Obama himself-knows why Ayers and the executive board selected Obama for this paid directorial position, or how long the two knew each other prior to Obama’s appointment.
At that time, Obama was an unproven, unknown, and inexperienced individual with no apparent qualifications to lead a major education initiative. While Obama’s campaign has denied Ayers’ influence in the CAC, Stanley Kurtz has shown that Ayers, as the foundation’s organizer, was in fact the most powerful member of the CAC’s executive board. [15]
Under Obama’s leadership, the CAC routinely and consistently funded those initiatives that were personally selected or led by Ayers. This resulted in multiple conflict-of-interest complaints against the CAC, due to Ayers’ influence within the organization. According to Kurtz, the CAC reflected Ayers’ views that children should be educated through the lens of political activism, and funded numerous extremist organizations dedicated to the furtherance of these viewpoints. He described CAC’s funding as follows:
“In works like “City Kids, City Teachers” and “Teaching the Personal and the Political,” Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression…CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with “external partners,” which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).” [16]
According to the CAC’s organizational charter, Obama, as the organization’s president, worked closely with Ayers, who served as Director of Education. During their partnership, the CAC trafficked more than $100 million to various educational associations, many of which were favored by Ayers and Dorhn. Even after Ayers chose to reduce his own role within the CAC, Obama continued to chair the foundation through 1999. While the CAC would expand its funding to other organizations, many of Ayers’ pet projects received funding throughout Obama’s tenure as president of the Challenge. [15]
Some might be tempted to praise Obama’s leadership in heading up such a lucrative educational foundation. However, further review of his tenure shows that the CAC failed miserably to achieve its own goals. CAC-funded schools did not see any serious improvement in test scores, graduation rates, or other demonstrable metrics. In short, Obama’s only executive experience resulted in a multi-million dollar failure. [17]
Obama’s ties to Ayers did not end with their cooperation on the CAC. Obama and Ayers were both chosen to sit on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charitable organization. They served together for two years, while Obama spent a total of nine years on the board (Ayers is still a board member). It is important to note that the Woods Fund donated money to Trinity United Church-Obama’s and Reverend Wright’s home church-and ACORN during Obama’s membership. [18]
In addition to their service together on the Woods board, Obama and Ayers reunited periodically over the next several years, attending two education seminars together (in 1997 and 2002). [19] In 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s state senate campaign. [20]
Obama’s Response
While Obama and Ayers spent more than seven years together in various capacities, Obama predictably denied his association with Ayers. At first, he downplayed Ayers’ terrorist activities, even calling him “mainstream” on his campaign website. [21] When this did not work, he simply denied the seriousness of his connections to Ayers. During a democratic debate last year, he made the following statement in regard to this Ayers association:
“This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense.” [19]
This excuse by Obama blatantly ignores his repeated collaborations with Ayers, and fails to explain why Ayers selected him to lead the organization he founded. It is important to note that Obama made this statement many months ago, prior to new discoveries which have only served to magnify his longstanding partnership with this terrorist. Today, he simply refuses to talk about his old friend.
Despite all of the information available concerning Obama’s ties to Ayers, one mystery that remains is the unflagging loyalty Ayers has shown to Obama’s political career. It is of consequence to note that Ayers, on his blog, repeatedly and harshly criticizes the Democratic Party. He calls them “cowardly” and labels them as “one of the two major pro-Imperialist parties in the U.S.” [22] The first question one might consider immediately is why Ayers is such an adamant supporter of Obama, especially given his disagreement with Obama’s own party. Only a few people know the answer to this question. Ayers and Obama are among them. But they are not talking.
During his nomination acceptance speech, Obama criticized John McCain for making patriotism the centerpiece of his campaign. He told McCain that “we all put country first.” Yet, in 2001, Obama’s friend posed for a photoshoot standing proudly on top of a crumpled American flag. Ironically, the article accompanying these pictures ran the week before the September 11 attacks.
That same week, Ayers responsed to a question about America being a fair and just country. On the notion that America is a great nation, Ayers responded by saying that the very idea “makes me want to puke.” [23] Bill Ayers was one of Barack Obama’s closest political allies in Chicago. Obama only denounced Ayers after being confronted with his friendship during his presidential campaign. That’s not putting country first. That’s putting Barack first.
Just like Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko, Emil Jones, Michael Pfleger, and other radicals, Obama’s link to Ayers shows that his closest political associations represent a violent radicalism far beyond mainstream American values. Ayers even describes himself as “a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist.” [24]
While Obama campaigns as a great uniter and a transformational, post-political visionary, his own record shows that his political views were formed by an astounding array of extremist hatemongers. Obama’s associations show repeated and inseparable links to the corrupt, scandal-ridden, racially-driven politics of division. He wasn’t ready to lead the Annenberg Challenge, and he’s not ready to lead the United States. In short, the politics of Barack Obama is change we cannot afford.
Sources:
[1] http://billayers.wordpress.com/biography-history/
[2] Bill Ayers. Fugitive Days: A Memoir
[3] Avrich. The Haymarket Tragedy, p. 431.
[4] http://www.democracynow.org/2003/8/21/ex_weather_underground_member_kathy_boudin
[5] Grathwohl, Larry, “as told to Frank Reagan”, Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen, Arlington House Publishers, New Rochelle, New York, 1976 pp 168, 169, ISBN 0870003350
[6] http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ODVlZTZlM2M5NTMxMzllMjJkODVkNzQ3YTFjMTY0NzE=
[7] Fire in the Night: The Weathermen tried to kill my family. City Journal April 30, 2008
[8] http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0E14FF3C5A157493C5A91788D85F448785F9
[9] Jacobs, The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground, 1997.
[10] Terry, Don (Chicago Tribune staff reporter, “The calm after the storm”, Chicago Tribune Magazine, p 10, September 16, 2001, June 8, 2008.
[11] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
[12] http://billayers.wordpress.com/2006/09/
[13] http://billayers.wordpress.com/2006/11/
[14] http://townhall.com/blog/g/bca4e228-1411-45da-a8ec-8820cc8b305e
[15] http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTViMGRmMmYxZTgwZTFjYmFjODU5YzM4Y2MwM2ViMjY=&w=MA==
[16] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
[17] http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDQ0MDBmMjQwZmYxYzhlZjc3ZGFkZjlkOWJlMTk2MWE=
18. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obama_and_the_woods_fund_of_ch.html
19. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/18/nation/na-radicals18
20. http://www.nysun.com/national/leftist-with-obama-ties-speaks-at-suny/71716
21. http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/04/17/fact_check_on_clinton_attacks.php
22. http://billayers.wordpress.com/2007/05/
23. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=267
24. Chepesiuk, Ron, “Sixties Radicals, Then and Now: Candid Conversations With Those Who Shaped the Era”, McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers: Jefferson, North Carolina, 1995, “Chapter 5: Bill Ayers: Radical Educator”, p. 102
Monday, September 22, 2008
SEE, I'm Not The Only One!!!
*Here's a recent blog posting from another young gay man who lives out in Oklahoma (he's pretty HOT too). I swear we'd be soulmates if we didn't live so far apart . . .
Why would any GLBT be a Conservative Republican? It sounds like an oxymoron. Let me tell you why I am. It is not because I'm embarrassed to be gay or that I’m in the closet. I'm proud to be gay. I am secure to be the unique individual that God created me. I am Republican because of my core principles, principles that I cannot compromise on.
I believe that all are created equal and worthy of the same rights to freedom, liberty, and equality. I work hard within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians. My commitment comes from my firm belief in the principles of limited government, individual liberty and freedom, personal responsibility, low taxes, free market capitalism and a strong national defense. I believe that entitlement programs are best administered by private charities. I believe that Federal beuracracy is inefficient and ineffective. I believe that it creates generations of “entitlement”. Americans are not supposed to look Uncle Sam for a fix to their problems. We have to look within ourselves, only we are responsible for our own development. Politics should be the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals. I believe that these principles and the moral values on which they stand are consistent with the pursuit of equal treatment under the law for gay and lesbian Americans.
I also believe all Americans have the right to life, liberty and equality. I believe equality for gay and lesbian people is consistent with the tradition of the Republican Party. Inclusion does win. I firmly believe that opposing gay and lesbian equality is inconsistent with the GOP's core principles of smaller government, personal freedom and individual choice and responsibility.
I am a loyal Republicans working for change from within the party. I work to secure full equality for gays, lesbians and all Americans. I believe it will create a stronger, larger, and more unified GOP, leading to the election of more fair-minded Republican candidates to public office at all levels of government. I am working to reclaim the GOP from the grasp of the Christian Coalition. While I believe everyone should have seat at the table (the Christian Coalition included) I don't believe that they should be able to dictate party policy to the exclusion of all others.
So this is who I am and this is what I believe. I am a gay Republican and a pariah in the gay community. I believe that Conservatism transcends gender, race, sexual orientation and other inherent, unchangeable qualities in any person who subscribes to those values. I am proof of that statement. I believe that conservative principles trump any party affiliation. However, I believe that Republicans offer the best hope of securing the vision of our forefathers and the future of our nation. It is up to people like myself to challenge the GOP to do what is in the best interests of this country in furthering the conservative cause while simultaneously opening up to those of us who are the new generation of the grassroots conservatives.
Why would any GLBT be a Conservative Republican? It sounds like an oxymoron. Let me tell you why I am. It is not because I'm embarrassed to be gay or that I’m in the closet. I'm proud to be gay. I am secure to be the unique individual that God created me. I am Republican because of my core principles, principles that I cannot compromise on.
I believe that all are created equal and worthy of the same rights to freedom, liberty, and equality. I work hard within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians. My commitment comes from my firm belief in the principles of limited government, individual liberty and freedom, personal responsibility, low taxes, free market capitalism and a strong national defense. I believe that entitlement programs are best administered by private charities. I believe that Federal beuracracy is inefficient and ineffective. I believe that it creates generations of “entitlement”. Americans are not supposed to look Uncle Sam for a fix to their problems. We have to look within ourselves, only we are responsible for our own development. Politics should be the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals. I believe that these principles and the moral values on which they stand are consistent with the pursuit of equal treatment under the law for gay and lesbian Americans.
I also believe all Americans have the right to life, liberty and equality. I believe equality for gay and lesbian people is consistent with the tradition of the Republican Party. Inclusion does win. I firmly believe that opposing gay and lesbian equality is inconsistent with the GOP's core principles of smaller government, personal freedom and individual choice and responsibility.
I am a loyal Republicans working for change from within the party. I work to secure full equality for gays, lesbians and all Americans. I believe it will create a stronger, larger, and more unified GOP, leading to the election of more fair-minded Republican candidates to public office at all levels of government. I am working to reclaim the GOP from the grasp of the Christian Coalition. While I believe everyone should have seat at the table (the Christian Coalition included) I don't believe that they should be able to dictate party policy to the exclusion of all others.
So this is who I am and this is what I believe. I am a gay Republican and a pariah in the gay community. I believe that Conservatism transcends gender, race, sexual orientation and other inherent, unchangeable qualities in any person who subscribes to those values. I am proof of that statement. I believe that conservative principles trump any party affiliation. However, I believe that Republicans offer the best hope of securing the vision of our forefathers and the future of our nation. It is up to people like myself to challenge the GOP to do what is in the best interests of this country in furthering the conservative cause while simultaneously opening up to those of us who are the new generation of the grassroots conservatives.
More On Bill Clinton's Views About Sarah Palin
*Be sure to read this one all the way to the end, and catch the subtle "jab" he takes at the Obama campaign, specifically VP candidiate Joe Biden.
Bill Clinton says Dems shouldn't attack Palin
Posted: 10:36 PM ET
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Bill Clinton said Dems shouldn't attack Palin.
(CNN) — Bill Clinton said Monday the Democratic ticket should steer clear of launching personal attacks on Sarah Palin over her relatively thin resume, and instead acknowledge she was a "good choice" for the No. 2 spot on the GOP ticket.
"Why say, ever, anything bad about a person? Why don't we like them and celebrate them and be happy for her elevation to the ticket? And just say that she was a good choice for him and we disagree with them?" said Clinton, who faced repeated charges during the primary season he was overly negative toward Obama on the campaign trail.
Clinton's comments appear to echo advice Karl Rove gave to Barack Obama in his regular Wall Street Journal column last week, when the former Bush strategist noted attacking the VP candidate has rarely proven to be an effective strategy.
In one of the former president's few extended comments to date on Palin's surprise VP candidacy, Clinton also told reporters in New York Monday he knows why the Alaska governor is attracting massive crowds on the campaign trail.
"I come from Arkansas, I get why she's hot out there," Clinton told reporters in New York, according to the Associated Press. "Why she's doing well."
"People look at her, and they say, 'All those kids. Something that happens in everybody's family I'm glad she loves her daughter and she's not ashamed of her. Glad that girl's going around with her boyfriend. Glad they're going to get married,'" he said.
Referencing Palin's 5-month old child who has Down Syndrome, Clinton also said voters will think, "I like that little Down syndrome kid — one of them lives down the street, they're wonderful children.”
Earlier Monday, Clinton suggested his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, would have been a better political choice for the Democratic VP spot than Joe Biden.
“She would have been the best politically, at least in the short run, because of her enormous support of the country,“ he said on the daytime talk show The View.
Bill Clinton says Dems shouldn't attack Palin
Posted: 10:36 PM ET
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Bill Clinton said Dems shouldn't attack Palin.
(CNN) — Bill Clinton said Monday the Democratic ticket should steer clear of launching personal attacks on Sarah Palin over her relatively thin resume, and instead acknowledge she was a "good choice" for the No. 2 spot on the GOP ticket.
"Why say, ever, anything bad about a person? Why don't we like them and celebrate them and be happy for her elevation to the ticket? And just say that she was a good choice for him and we disagree with them?" said Clinton, who faced repeated charges during the primary season he was overly negative toward Obama on the campaign trail.
Clinton's comments appear to echo advice Karl Rove gave to Barack Obama in his regular Wall Street Journal column last week, when the former Bush strategist noted attacking the VP candidate has rarely proven to be an effective strategy.
In one of the former president's few extended comments to date on Palin's surprise VP candidacy, Clinton also told reporters in New York Monday he knows why the Alaska governor is attracting massive crowds on the campaign trail.
"I come from Arkansas, I get why she's hot out there," Clinton told reporters in New York, according to the Associated Press. "Why she's doing well."
"People look at her, and they say, 'All those kids. Something that happens in everybody's family I'm glad she loves her daughter and she's not ashamed of her. Glad that girl's going around with her boyfriend. Glad they're going to get married,'" he said.
Referencing Palin's 5-month old child who has Down Syndrome, Clinton also said voters will think, "I like that little Down syndrome kid — one of them lives down the street, they're wonderful children.”
Earlier Monday, Clinton suggested his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, would have been a better political choice for the Democratic VP spot than Joe Biden.
“She would have been the best politically, at least in the short run, because of her enormous support of the country,“ he said on the daytime talk show The View.
Even Bill Clinton Will Not Endorse Obama!
He doesn't directly endorse John McCain either, but sure has a lot of praiseworthy things to say about him. You all be the judge of what he might be trying to say. This must be a huge OUCH for the Obama campaign!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)