Tuesday, October 7, 2008

FACTS DO NOT MATTER MUCH POLITICALLY IF THEY ARE NOT REPORTED

..............................................................

FACTS MATTER

BY THOMAS SOWELL

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.

Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?

We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?

Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.

Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.

Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!

The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.

The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.

But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.

Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.

The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

RARELY HAS POLITICAL SATIRE BEEN MORE TIMELY, POINTED AND, IN MANY RESPECTS, SO TRUTHFUL

One of the funniest and most politically searing comedy sketches in years has vanished from the Web site of NBC's Saturday Night Live. Visitor comments asking about its disappearance are also being scrubbed from the Web site. The sketch -- a harsh indictment of the housing meltdown that led to last week's bailout bill -- was clearly too much truth for someone to handle.

The seven-minute sketch featured a mock news conference of Democratic Congressional leaders on the bailout bill, during which Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank inadvertently acknowledge that it was Congress that blocked reform and effective oversight of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Then SNL comic Kristen Wiig, playing Speaker Pelosi, introduces a parade of "victims" of the housing crisis. These "real Americans" include two jobless deadbeats who bought houses with no down-payment and a preppy couple who can't flip the dozen time-share condos they bought as a speculative investment.

They were followed by actors portraying the real-life couple of Herbert and Marion Sandler. They explained how they built a mortgage company that specialized in subprime mortgages, which they sold to Wachovia Bank for $24.2 billion in 2006 -- one of the worst acquisitions by any company ever. It helped precipitate the collapse of Wachovia last week.

The Sandlers were hustled off the stage by "Speaker Pelosi" after they said they couldn't understand why they were invited to a news conference of "victims" since they had done so well out of the housing crisis.

They were followed by financier George Soros, identified as "Owner, Democratic Party." The actor portraying Mr. Soros informs the group that the $700 billion bailout package "basically belongs to me" and that he has decided to short the U.S. dollar. That will trigger a devaluation "either Tuesday or Wednesday. I haven't decided which yet. It will depend on how I feel."

The brutally wicked sketch must have caused tremors in left-wing circles. The Sandlers and Mr. Soros have all been prime financial backers of independent political groups that have secured huge influence in the Democratic Party and helped fuel the rise of Barack Obama.

The Sandlers, for example, were major donors to the left-wing radio network Air America as well as the liberal housing lobby ACORN, a major player in pressuring banks into making more subprime mortgages. They also donated $2.5 million to MoveOn.org, the liberal group that insulted General David Petraeus as "General Betray Us" last year. Mr. Soros contributed a like amount. In turn, Eli Pariser, the head of MoveOn.org, was quite candid after the 2004 election about the influence this left-wing cabal hoped to exercise: "Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we are going to take it back."

No doubt the Sandlers and Mr. Soros were displeased with the Saturday Night Live sketch. Herbert Sandler told the Associated Press that its portrayal of him as a predatory lender was "crap." "We are being unfairly tarred. People have been telling us to speak out for some time, but we didn't think it was appropriate. That was clearly a mistake."

I suspect that some of the people the Sandlers have spoken to -- or complained to -- are the corporate overseers of NBC. That may explain why the bailout sketch has been airbrushed from the network's Web site and will likely never be shown again.

That's a shame, because rarely has political satire been more timely, pointed and, in many respects, so truthful.

-JOHN FUND

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL'S POLITICAL DIARY ONLINE

07 OCTOBER 08

BILL AYERS: "I WAS A CHILD OF PRIVILEGE AND I WOKE UP TO A WORLD ON FIRE."

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up “a gentleman named William Ayers,” who “was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s."

"They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that.” Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers.

Obama’s answer: “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, George.”

Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me.

In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called “Panther 21,” members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of February 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. (Today, of course, we’d call that a car bomb.)

A neighbor heard the first two blasts and, with the remains of a snowman I had built a few days earlier, managed to douse the flames beneath the car. That was an act whose courage I fully appreciated only as an adult, an act that doubtless saved multiple lives that night.

I still recall, as though it were a dream, thinking that someone was lifting and dropping my bed as the explosions jolted me awake, and I remember my mother’s pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn’t leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside.

The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. Sunlight, the next morning, revealed three sentences of blood-red graffiti on our sidewalk: FREE THE PANTHER 21; THE VIET CONG HAVE WON; KILL THE PIGS.

For the next 18 months, I went to school in an unmarked police car. My mother, a schoolteacher, had plainclothes detectives waiting in the faculty lounge all day. My brother saved a few bucks because he didn’t have to rent a limo for the senior prom: the NYPD did the driving. We all made the best of the odd new life that had been thrust upon us, but for years, the sound of a fire truck’s siren made my stomach knot and my heart race. In many ways, the enormity of the attempt to kill my entire family didn’t fully hit me until years later, when, a father myself, I was tucking my own nine-year-old John Murtagh into bed.

Though no one was ever caught or tried for the attempt on my family’s life, there was never any doubt who was behind it. Only a few weeks after the attack, the New York contingent of the Weathermen blew themselves up making more bombs in a Greenwich Village townhouse. The same cell had bombed my house, writes Ron Jacobs in The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. And in late November that year, a letter to the Associated Press signed by Bernardine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife, promised more bombings.

As the association between Obama and Ayers came to light, it would have helped the senator a little if his friend had at least shown some remorse. But listen to Ayers interviewed in the New York Times on September 11, 2001, of all days: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Translation: “We meant to kill that judge and his family, not just damage the porch.” When asked by the Times if he would do it all again, Ayers responded: “I don’t want to discount the possibility.”

Though never a supporter of Obama, I admired him for a time for his ability to engage our imaginations, and especially for his ability to inspire the young once again to embrace the political system. Yet his myopia in the last few months has cast a new light on his “politics of change.” Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends’ and supporters’ violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates, and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country. It is fair, too, to ask what those choices say about Obama’s own beliefs, his philosophy, and the direction he would take our nation.

At the conclusion of his 2001 Times interview, Ayers said of his upbringing and subsequent radicalization: “I was a child of privilege and I woke up to a world on fire.”

Funny thing, Bill: one night, so did I.

John M. Murtagh is a practicing attorney, an adjunct professor of public policy at the Fordham University College of Liberal Studies, and a member of the city council in Yonkers, New York, where he resides with his wife and two sons.

Monday, October 6, 2008

WHO IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?

..............................................................

“Who is Barack Obama?”
is not an irrelevant question given the job Obama is seeking, and it’s a question he has sought mightily to avoid answering. The veil of secrecy he has thrown over his past (journalists have been denied access to his state legislative office records, documents about state earmarks he distributed in Illinois, a list of his legal clients, his state bar application, billing records related to Tony Rezko, medical records, academic records — all of which are the sort of documents candidates routinely make public) forces the question all the more.

- Yuval Levin,

writing in THE CORNER OF THE NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE

06/OCT/08

WHO IS THIS MAN ON COURSE TO BE THE 44TH PRESIDENT?

....................................................

CRIME PASSIONEL

by Mark Steyn

THE CORNER / THE NANIONAL REVIEW

Monday, October 06, 2008



From the statement of educators in support of Bill Ayers:

"All citizens, but particularly teachers and scholars, are called upon to challenge orthodoxy, dogma, and mindless complacency, to be skeptical of authoritative claims, to interrogate and trouble the given and the taken-for-granted. Without critical dialogue and dissent we would likely be burning witches and enslaving our fellow human beings to this day..."

"The current characterizations of Professor Ayers—-“unrepentant terrorist,” “lunatic leftist”—-are unrecognizable to those who know or work with him. It’s true that Professor Ayers participated passionately in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s, as did hundreds of thousands of Americans."

Really?

Hundreds of thousands of Americans

plotted to kill soldiers and their dates by blowing them up at a dance?

No wonder Barack's ahead in the polls.

The point is not that President-designate Obama is a "close friend" of the unrepentant Ayers, or that he was only eight when his patron was building bombs to kill the women of New Jersey. As Joe Biden would no doubt point out on his entertaining "This Day In History" segment, McCain was only six when Czogolsz killed President McKinley. But I doubt he'd let the guy host a fundraiser for him.

But, in the world in which Obama moves, it would seem absurd and provincial to object to partying with an "unrepentant terrorist". The Senator advanced and prospered in a milieu in which men like Ayers are not just accepted but admired for their "passionate participation", and function as power-brokers and path-smoothers. This is a great country, and most of us (as Peter Kirsanow notes below) make it without having to kiss up to America-haters like Ayers and Wright.

But not Obama.

Who is this man on course to be 44th president?

Apparently, it's not just impolite but racist to ask.

As notorious white supremacist Thomas Sowell [Ed. Tomas Sowell is a black man)

puts it:

"But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America."

Can the industrial-strength Doris Day fuzzy filter the media are filming him through be penetrated? Time is running out, McCain seems disinclined to do it, and (as Rich says) his lack of an economic message will make the point moot.

As Mark Levin notes below, Obama presents himself as mainstream. I suspect that almost every Cornerite could make each of the following statements:
  • My career was not launched with the assistance of an unrepentant terrorist.
  • My pastor has never said "God damn America."
  • I don't think our troops are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."
  • My spouse doesn't think America is a "downright mean country."
  • I've never sat on a board with an unrepentant terrorist.
  • I've never directed millions of dollars to radical organizations.
  • I've never opposed requiring medical care for babies who are born alive.
  • I bought my home without assistance from a convicted felon.
  • I've never taken my kids to a church whose pastor thinks AIDS was created by the government.
If Obama's mainstream, most Americans are extremists.

ONE CAR TWO ACCELERATORS,NO BRAKES, AND AN APPROACHING PRECIPICE

BY BYRON YORK

THE CORNER/THE NATIONAL REVIEW


With all this talk of gloves being taken off and Bill Ayers and all that,

I decided to ask an expert what kind of ad he would make to attack Barack Obama,

if he were given that assignment today.

Alex Castellanos is the widely-acknowledged master of the genre,

but he's not taking part in this presidential campaign. This is the ad he said he'd make:


"When this country and this economy are so near the precipice, do we really want to be driving a car with two accelerators and no brake? A Democratic Congress and a Democratic president like Barack Obama? A complete, unrestricted blank check for inexperienced radical leadership in Washington?"


In short, let voters suffer buyer's remorse now, before the purchase.

BY Jonah Goldberg

THE CORNER/THE NATIONAL REVIEW

Mark (Ed. Steyn) - I love that statement from the noble scholars in defense of Ayers.

Indeed one of my favorite things about the Ayers controversy is that it "heightens the contradictions" of the America left, as the Marxists might say. If I may say so, I was one of the first columnists to write about Ayers (back in Feburary), and my chief interest in Ayers was what he represents:

"What fascinates me is how light the baggage is when one travels from violent radicalism to liberalism. Chicago activist Sam Ackerman told Politico’s reporter that Ayers “is one of my heroes in life.” Cass Sunstein, a first-rank liberal intellectual, said, “I feel very uncomfortable with their past, but neither of them is thought of as horrible types now — so far as most of us know, they are legitimate members of the community.”

It seems to me the liberal left needs to decide, was Ayers a horrible figure to be ashamed of, or a hero? If you don't like this choice, why?

And since I'm quoting myself here's a page from my book on the Weather Underground

passionate civil rights and anti-war movement:

"Many of us forget that the Weather Underground bombing cam-
paign was not a matter of a few isolated incidents. From September
1969 to May 1970, Rudd and his co-revolutionaries on the white rad-
ical left committed about 250 attacks, or almost one terrorist bomb-
ing a day (government estimates put that number up to 600 percent
higher). During the summer of 1970, there were twenty bombings a
week in California. The bombings were the backbeat to the sym-
phony of violence, much of it rhetorical, that set the score for the
New Left in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Rudd captured the tone
perfectly: “It’s a wonderful feeling to hit a pig. It must be a really
wonderful feeling to kill a pig or blow up a building.” “The real di-
vision is not between people who support bombings and people who
don’t,” explained a secret member of a “bombing collective,” but
“between people who will do them and people who are too hung up
on their own privileges and security to take those risks.”


"Bourgeois self-loathing lay at the very heart of the New Left’s ha-
tred of liberalism, its love affair with violence, and its willingness to
take a sledgehammer to Western civilization. “We’re against every-
thing that’s ‘good and decent’ in honky America,” declared one
rebel. “We will burn and loot and destroy. We are the incubation of
your mother’s worst nightmare.” The Weathermen became the storm
troopers of the New Left, horrifying even those who agreed with
their cause. Convinced that all whites were born tainted with the
original sin of “skin privilege,” the fighting brigade of the New Left
internalized racialist thinking as hatred of their own whiteness. “All
white babies are pigs,” declared one Weatherman. On one occasion
the feminist poet Robin Morgan was breast-feeding her son at the of-
fices of the radical journal Rat. A Weatherwoman saw this and told
her, “You have no right to have that pig male baby.” “How can you
say that?” Morgan asked. “What should I do?” “Put it in the
garbage,” the Weatherwoman answered."

"Bernadine Dohrn [Ayers' wife], an acid-loving University of Chicago law stu-
dent turned revolutionary, reflected the widespread New Left fasci-
nation with the serial-killing hippie Übermensch Charles Manson.
“Dig It! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same
room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach!
Wild!” In appreciation, her Weather Underground cell made a three-
fingered “fork” gesture its official salute."

Yep, nothing but a lot of singing "We Shall Overcome" and peaceful civil disobedience here!

THE AYERS QUESTION

BY Yuval Levin

THE CORNER/THE NATIONAL REVIEW

Very soon after she was picked to be McCain’s running mate,
Sarah Palin was attacked by Obama campaign spokesmen and a Democratic member of Congress for once being seen wearing a Pat Buchanan button. She had an answer and the campaign offered it.
Yet now we are asked to believe that it’s somehow inappropriate to inquire why Barack Obama’s political career began in the home of an admitted and unrepentant domestic terrorist of the radical left?

“Who is Barack Obama?”
is not an irrelevant question given the job Obama is seeking, and it’s a question he has sought mightily to avoid answering. The veil of secrecy he has thrown over his past (journalists have been denied access to his state legislative office records, documents about state earmarks he distributed in Illinois, a list of his legal clients, his state bar application, billing records related to Tony Rezko, medical records, academic records — all of which are the sort of documents candidates routinely make public) forces the question all the more.


The Obama campaign’s response to the question appears to be to raise John McCain’s connection to the Keating Five scandal. It is by no means out of bounds to raise the issue. McCain received campaign funds from Keating, his wife’s company had been involved in investment ventures with him, and he once met with federal regulators about Keating’s bank — though the Senate Ethics Committee found that unlike three other senators involved in the scandal, “Senator McCain’s actions were not improper.” The committee said only that he had exercised bad judgment by being involved with Keating at all and not seeing what others were doing. In fact, Bob Bennett, who was the Democratic lawyer selected by the committee to investigate the Keating Five, says in his book that he recommended that McCain’s name be dropped from the investigation because there was no evidence against him but, for political reasons (the other Senators were all Democrats), McCain’s name was left on the list.


McCain’s response to that scandal should certainly be compared with Obama’s Ayers explanations. McCain has spoken and written about every detail of the Keating mess, has expressed open contrition for allowing himself to be drawn into it even tangentially, and devoted years of his career to combating corruption as a result. He even badly overreacted and pushed for vastly excessive regulation of campaign financing. He has said (in a book in which he details his and others’ actions in the matter) that merely the appearance of impropriety involved makes his involvement with Keating “the worst mistake of my life.”


Had Obama done and said something similar regarding the sort of radicalism Ayers represents, he would now have an answer to offer. Instead, he has worked with Ayers, supported his causes, and denied any significance to the links between them. That, too, makes this a legitimate question about a man who would be president.

BEHIND EVERY MAN, THERE IS A SMART WOMAN

..............................................

My friend, Father Peter Stravinskas, sent this to me and I am
happy to share it with you.

..............................................



WOMEN KNOW THEIR PLACE


A point of view... Barbara Walters of Television's 20/20 did a story on gender roles in Kabul , Afghanistan , several years before the Afghan conflict.
She noted that women customarily walked 5 paces behind their husbands. She recently returned to Kabul and observed that women still walk behind their husbands.
From Miss Walter's vantage point, despite the overthrow of the oppressive Taliban regime, the women now seem to walk even further back behind their husbands and are happy to maintain the old custom.
Miss Walters approached one of the Afghani women and asked, 'Why do you now seem happy with the old custom that you once tried so desperately to change?'
The woman looked Miss Walters straight in the eyes, and without hesitation, said, 'Land Mines.'
Moral of the story is........(no matter where you go)

BEHIND EVERY MAN, THERE'S A SMART WOMAN

Sunday, October 5, 2008

MEET OBAMA'S FRIEND AND MENTOR, BILL AYERS

.........................

No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen

Published: September 11, 2001
THE NEW YORK TIMES

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The long curly locks in his Wanted poster are shorn, though he wears earrings. He still has tattooed on his neck the rainbow-and-lightning Weathermen logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for bombings. And he still has the ebullient, ingratiating manner, the apparently intense interest in other people, that made him a charismatic figure in the radical student movement.

Now he has written a book, ''Fugitive Days'' (Beacon Press, September). Mr. Ayers, who is 56, calls it a memoir, somewhat coyly perhaps, since he also says some of it is fiction. He writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972. But Mr. Ayers also seems to want to have it both ways, taking responsibility for daring acts in his youth, then deflecting it.

''Is this, then, the truth?,'' he writes. ''Not exactly. Although it feels entirely honest to me.''

But why would someone want to read a memoir parts of which are admittedly not true? Mr. Ayers was asked.

''Obviously, the point is it's a reflection on memory,'' he answered. ''It's true as I remember it.''

Mr. Ayers is probably safe from prosecution anyway. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said there was a five-year statute of limitations on Federal crimes except in cases of murder or when a person has been indicted.

Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ''Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,'' is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And he says he doesn't actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but ''it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did,'' he said. ''It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.''

He went underground in 1970, after his girlfriend, Diana Oughton, and two other people were killed when bombs they were making exploded in a Greenwich Village town house. With him in the Weather Underground was Bernardine Dohrn, who was put on the F.B.I.'s 10 Most Wanted List. J. Edgar Hoover called her ''the most dangerous woman in America'' and ''la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left.'' Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn later married.

In his book Mr. Ayers describes the Weathermen descending into a ''whirlpool of violence.''

''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,'' he writes. But then comes a disclaimer: ''Even though I didn't actually bomb the Pentagon -- we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.'' He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom. No one was killed or injured, though damage was extensive.

Between 1970 and 1974 the Weathermen took responsibility for 12 bombings, Mr. Ayers writes, and also helped spring Timothy Leary (sentenced on marijuana charges) from jail.

Today, Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn, 59, who is director of the Legal Clinic's Children and Family Justice Center of Northwestern University, seem like typical baby boomers, caring for aging parents, suffering the empty-nest syndrome. Their son, Malik, 21, is at the University of California, San Diego; Zayd, 24, teaches at Boston University. They have also brought up Chesa Boudin, 21, the son of David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, who are serving prison terms for a 1981 robbery of a Brinks truck in Rockland County, N.Y., that left four people dead. Last month, Ms. Boudin's application for parole was rejected.

So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.

''I don't think you can understand a single thing we did without understanding the violence of the Vietnam War,'' he said, and the fact that ''the enduring scar of racism was fully in flower.'' Mr. Ayers pointed to Bob Kerrey, former Democratic Senator from Nebraska, who has admitted leading a raid in 1969 in which Vietnamese women and children were killed. ''He committed an act of terrorism,'' Mr. Ayers said. ''I didn't kill innocent people.''

Mr. Ayers has always been known as a ''rich kid radical.'' His father, Thomas, now 86, was chairman and chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison of Chicago, chairman of Northwestern University and of the Chicago Symphony. When someone mentions his father's prominence, Mr. Ayers is quick to say that his father did not become wealthy until the son was a teenager. He says that he got some of his interest in social activism from his father. He notes that his father promoted racial equality in Chicago and was acceptable as a mediator to Mayor Richard Daley and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1966 when King marched in Cicero, Ill., to protest housing segregation.

All in all, Mr. Ayers had ''a golden childhood,'' he said, though he did have a love affair with explosives. On July 4, he writes, ''my brothers and I loved everything about the wild displays of noise and color, the flares, the surprising candle bombs, but we trembled mostly for the Big Ones, the loud concussions.''

The love affair seems to have continued into adulthood. Even today, he finds ''a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance,'' he writes.

He attended Lake Forest Academy in Lake Forest, Ill., then the University of Michigan but dropped out to join Students for a Democratic Society.

In 1967 he met Ms. Dohrn in Ann Arbor, Mich. She had a law degree from the University of Chicago and was a magnetic speaker who often wore thigh-high boots and miniskirts. In 1969, after the Manson family murders in Beverly Hills, Ms. Dohrn told an S.D.S. audience: ''Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim's stomach.''

In Chicago recently, Ms. Dohrn said of her remarks: ''It was a joke. We were mocking violence in America. Even in my most inflamed moment I never supported a racist mass murderer.''

Ms. Dohrn, Mr. Ayers and others eventually broke with S.D.S. to form the more radical Weathermen, and in 1969 Ms. Dohrn was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer during the Days of Rage protests against the trial of the Chicago Eight -- antiwar militants accused of conspiracy to incite riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

In 1970 came the town house explosion in Greenwich Village. Ms. Dohrn failed to appear in court in the Days of Rage case, and she and Mr. Ayers went underground, though there were no charges against Mr. Ayers. Later that spring the couple were indicted along with others in Federal Court for crossing state lines to incite a riot during the Days of Rage, and following that for ''conspiracy to bomb police stations and government buildings.'' Those charges were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct, including illegal surveillance.

During his fugitive years, Mr. Ayers said, he lived in 15 states, taking names of dead babies in cemeteries who were born in the same year as he. He describes the typical safe house: there were usually books by Malcolm X and Ho Chi Minh, and Che Guevara's picture in the bedroom; fermented Vietnamese fish sauce in the refrigerator, and live sourdough starter donated by a Native American that was reputed to have passed from hand to hand over a century.

He also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to ''smash monogamy.'' The Weathermen were ''an army of lovers,'' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend.

''Fugitive Days'' does have moments of self-mockery, for instance when Mr. Ayers describes watching ''Underground,'' Emile De Antonio's 1976 documentary about the Weathermen. He was ''embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way,'' he writes. ''The rigidity and the narcissism.''

In the mid-1970's the Weathermen began quarreling. One faction, including Ms. Boudin, wanted to join the Black Liberation Army. Others, including Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers, favored surrendering. Ms. Boudin and Ms. Dohrn had had an intense friendship but broke apart. Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn were purged from the group.

Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers had a son, Zayd, in 1977. After the birth of Malik, in 1980, they decided to surface. Ms. Dohrn pleaded guilty to the original Days of Rage charge, received three years probation and was fined $1,500. The Federal charges against Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn had already been dropped.

Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn tried to persuade Ms. Boudin to surrender because she was pregnant. But she refused, and went on to participate in the Brink's robbery. When she was arrested, Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers volunteered to care for Chesa, then 14 months old, and became his legal guardians.

A few months later Ms. Dohrn was called to testify about the robbery. Ms. Dohrn had not seen Ms. Boudin for a year, she said, and knew nothing of it. Ms. Dohrn was asked to give a handwriting sample, and refused, she said, because the F.B.I. already had one in its possession. ''I felt grand juries were illegal and coercive,'' she said. For refusing to testify, she was jailed for seven months, and she and Mr. Ayers married during a furlough.

Once again, Chesa was without a mother. ''It was one of the hardest things I did,'' said Ms. Dohrn of going to jail.

In the interview, Mr. Ayers called Chesa ''a very damaged kid.'' ''He had real serious emotional problems,'' he said. But after extensive therapy, ''became a brilliant and wonderful human being.'' .

After the couple surfaced, Ms. Dohrn tried to practice law, taking the bar exam in New York. But she was turned down by the Bar Association's character committee because of her political activities.

Ms. Dohrn said she was aware of the contradictions between her radical past and the comforts of her present existence. ''This is where we raised our kids and are taking care of our aging parents,'' she said. ''We could live much more simply, and well we might.''

And as for settling into marriage after efforts to smash monogamy, Ms. Dohrn said, ''You're always trying to balance your understanding of who you are and what you need, and your longing and imaginings of freedom.''

''Happily for me, Billy keeps me laughing, he keeps me growing,'' she said.

Mr. Ayers said he had some of the same conflicts about marriage. ''We have to learn how to be committed,'' he said, ''and hold out the possibility of endless reinventions.''

As Mr. Ayers mellows into middle age, he finds himself thinking about truth and reconciliation, he said. He would like to see a Truth and Reconciliation Commission about Vietnam, he said, like South Africa's. He can imagine Mr. Kerrey and Ms. Boudin taking part.

And if there were another Vietnam, he is asked, would he participate again in the Weathermen bombings?

By way of an answer, Mr. Ayers quoted from ''The Cure at Troy,'' Seamus Heaney's retelling of Sophocles' ''Philoctetes:'' '' 'Human beings suffer,/ They torture one another./ They get hurt and get hard.' ''

He continued to recite:

History says, Don't hope

On this side of the grave.

But then, once in a lifetime

The longed-for tidal wave

Of justice can rise up

And hope and history rhyme.

Thinking back on his life , Mr. Ayers said, ''I was a child of privilege and I woke up to a world on fire. And hope and history rhymed.''


...................................................................




N.Y. Times whitewashes Obama-Ayers connection: Fails to report key connections, ignores incriminating documents given to paper
10/4/2008 7:17:00 PM
By Aaron Klein -www.WorldNetDaily.com

A prominent article by the New York Times this weekend purporting to investigate the connections between Sen. Barack Obama and former Weathermen radical Bill Ayers omits key associations between the two and in some cases seems to minimize their relationship.

One law professor and blogger who was interviewed for the Times says he provided the newspaper with key documentation showing Ayers was directly involved in the formation of the board of an education organization on which Obama served as chairman.

But the Times did not present that information and instead made the claim Ayers was not involved in the selection of Obama as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, or CAC, which was founded by Ayers.

The Times article in question was first released online under the title "Obama had met Ayers, but the two are not close." That title was soon changed to, "Obama and the '60's Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths."

The piece purports to present the scope of Obama's relationship with Ayers, an increasingly public point of contention during this campaign season, with Gov. Sarah Palin just yesterday highlighting the controversial relationship.

News reports, archived records, interviews and Ayers' own curriculum vitae document that Ayers was the founder of CAC, which bills itself as a school reform organization. Documentation shows Ayers led the application process to apply for the original grant that funded the CAC.

Ayers served as co-chairman of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one of the two operational arms of the CAC, from its formation in 1995 until 2000. In 1995, Obama was appointed as the CAC's first chairman.

The Times, though, does not mention Ayers' role in founding the CAC, documented in several articles in 1994 and 1995 in the Chicago Tribune, which detail Ayers' extensive work to secure the original grant from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg, as well as Ayers' molding of the CAC guidelines.

Many argue it would have been unusual for Ayers not to have been involved in the selection of the chairman of the group he himself founded.

The Times claims that "according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama's appointment (to chair the CAC)."

The newspaper says Obama was suggested as a nominee to lead the CAC board by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year.

Reported the Times: "At a lunch with two other foundation heads, Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation, Ms. Leff suggested that Mr. Obama would make a good board chairman, she said in an interview. Mr. Ayers was not present and had not suggested Mr. Obama, she said."

The Times did not quote either Leff or Graham as directly stating Ayers was not involved in the selection of Obama, just that Leff originally suggested Obama. The article then continued to other matters.

Steve Diamond, a political science and law professor and a blogger who has posted on Obama, said he was interviewed for the Times piece. He said he provided Times writer Scott Shane with documentation that proves Ayers was directly involved in forming the board and leadership of the CAC.

Among the documents is a letter from November 18, 1994 in which Vartan Gregorian, president of Brown University and a member of Annenberg's selection committee, asked Ayers to compose the governing board and the Collaborative, to engage people who reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of Chicago."

A copy of the letter and Ayers' reply are available on Diamond's blog.

On December 1, 1994, Ayers and Anne Hallett, who co-chaired a CAC branch with Ayers, wrote back to Gregorian:

"Thank you for your letter of November 18, 1994. We are continuing to build a broad base of consensus and support for the main thrust of the proposal. ... We have given careful thought to the issues raised in your letter. We are working with Adele Simmons, Deborah Leff, and Pat Graham on issues of management and governance to ensure that Chicago's Annenberg Challenge initiative is successful.

"We offer the following responses: ... Board of Directors. A five-to-seven person Board of Directors of highly respected Chicagoans is being assembled. Pat Graham, president of the Spencer Foundation, has agreed to serve and is willing to work with the Board. The duties of the Board will be to approve grants, to help raising matching funds, and to hire the executive director. ... The Board and the Collaborative will reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of Chicago."

Diamond concluded that Ayers, who conceived and led the organization, submission and implementation of the CAC grant application, was viewed as responsible for composing the board on which Obama served.

But that information was not included in the Times piece, which bases its claim that Ayers was not involved in the appointment of Obama largely on Leff's statement that she first suggested Obama.

But documents from 1994 that Diamond said he provided to the Times indicate Leff viewed Ayers as in charge of the CAC:

Wrote Leff: "The Joyce Foundation strongly supports the proposal for the Annenberg Challenge Grant submitted from Chicago. At its meeting just two weeks ago, our Board of Directors approved a grant of $80,000 to Professor William Ayers at the University of Illinois at Chicago to establish the Chicago School Reform Collaborative - the working group that Ayers organized to develop and submit the CAC grant proposal and that would become an arm of the CAC once established in 1995."

Also missing from the times is information, first exposed by WND, that Obama and Ayers used the CAC grant money to fund organizations run by radicals tied to Ayers, including Mike Klonsky, a former top communist activist who was a senior leader in the Students for a Democratic Society group, a major leftist student organization in the 1960s from which the Weathermen terror group later splintered.

National Review Online writer Stanley Kurtz pointed out the Times article also ignored individuals connected to Ayers and the CAC he said helped block his original attempts to obtain the CAC archives housed at the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago. It was Kurtz who found that along with Leff and Graham, Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board of the CAC, which hired Obama.

The documents obtained by Kurtz showed Ayers served as an ex-officio member of the board that Obama chaired through the CAC's first year. Ayers also served on the board's governance committee with Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws, according to the documents.

Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Obama. Ayers also spoke for the Chicago School Reform Collaborative before Obama's board, while Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the collaborative, the CAC documents reviewed by Kurtz show.

The Times piece goes on to document what it titles "other connections" between Obama and Ayers.

It reported that in 1997, after Obama took office, the new state senator was asked what he was reading by The Chicago Tribune. He praised a book by Ayers, "A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court," which the Times noted Obama called "a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system."

The Times, though, did not report Ayer's book could easily be characterized as anti-American, comparing the U.S. to South African apartheid and dismissing the notion the U.S. is a just nation while questioning whether America should maintain a prison system.

The Times also reports that in 2001, Ayers donated $200 to Mr. Obama's re-election campaign.

It then recognized - as WND first exclusively reported - that Obama served on the board of the Wood's Fund, a liberal Chicago nonprofit, alongside Ayers.

But the newspaper got the dates wrong and here again seemed to minimize the pair's relationship, saying Obama and Ayers "overlapped on the seven-member board." It claimed the two served together on the Wood's Fund from 2000 to 2002, while the Fund's own website documents indicated Obama and Ayers served together beginning in 1999.

The Times ignored altogether that Obama and Ayers appeared together as speakers at several public events, including a 1997 University of Chicago panel entitled, "Should a child ever be called a 'super predator?'" and another panel for the University of Illinois in April 2002 entitled, "Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?"

The Times article seemed to go to great lengths to argue Ayers, once a domestic terrorist, is currently rehabilitated.

"In Chicago, Mr. Ayers has largely been rehabilitated," the Times article stated.

"Federal riot and bombing conspiracy charges against him were dropped in 1974 because of illegal wiretaps and other prosecutorial misconduct, and he was welcomed back after years in hiding by his large and prominent family," stated the article.

Toward the end of the piece, the article acknowledges it was the New York Times which on 9/11 profiled Ayers and quoted from his just-published memoir, "Fugitive Days," in which he write: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers posed for a photograph accompanying the 9/11 piece that shows him stepping on an American flag.

In response to controversy following the Times piece and the 9/11 attacks, the Times this weekend noted Ayers wrote on his blog in 2001 that his memoir "is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism."

But unreported is that just last month, Ayers wrote on his blog he still feels not enough was done to oppose the Vietnam War, although he clarified, "I don't think violent resistance is necessarily the answer, but I do think opposition and refusal is imperative."

MEET THE WEATHERMEN

Bernardine Dohrn
Part of the leadership of the Weather Underground, Dohrn was considered the organization’s figurehead. She spent the 1970s living underground and was on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list. Today, Dohrn is an associate professor and director at Northwestern University's Children and Justice Center.
Mark Rudd

Mark Rudd
Rudd was best known for his role in the 1968 Columbia protests. As part of the Weather Underground's leadership, he lived underground for several years during the 1970s. He now teaches at a junior college in New Mexico.
Brian Flanagan

Brian Flanagan
A former member of the Weather Underground, Flanagan is currently a bar-owner in New York City.
David Gilbert

David Gilbert
When the organization dismantled, Gilbert joined the Black Liberation Army and plunged deeper into revolutionary violence. He is currently serving a life sentence in New York’s Attica Correctional Facility for his role in a 1981 robbery gone awry, committed with his wife and fellow ex-Weatherman Kathy Boudin.
Bill Ayers

Bill Ayers
A central figure in the Weathermen, Ayers lived underground for ten years, an experience he wrote about in his memoir, Fugitive Days. Now married to Dohrn, Ayers is currently a school reform activist and a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.


Naomi Jaffe
A former member of the Weather Underground, Jaffe currently lives in Albany, New York, and is executive director of a foundation that supports women's activism.
Laura Whitehorn

Laura Whitehorn
A former member of the Weather Underground, Whitehorn now lives in New York City and is active in a wide range of progressive causes.

Saturday, October 4, 2008

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA REALLY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN? WHERE IS THE PROOF?

..........................................................


ELECTION 2008
DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate

Democrat suing his own party says it's 'like they're in cahoots'


Posted: October 04, 2008
12:00 am Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Philip J. Berg

The man suing Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee for proof of Obama's American citizenship is outraged that his own party – rather than just providing the birth certificate he seeks – would step in to silence him by filing a motion to dismiss his lawsuit.

As WND reported, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court two months ago claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore not eligible to be elected president. Berg has since challenged Obama publicly that if the candidate will simply produce authorized proof of citizenship, he'll drop the suit.

Berg told WND the longer the DNC tries to ignore his lawsuit or make it go away – instead of just providing the documents – the more convinced he is that his accusations are correct.

Despite assertions by the Washington Post, FactChecker.org and other organizations that Obama has produced a certified Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg told WND he remains "99.99 percent sure" that the certificate is a fake and he wants a court, not a website, to determine its validity.

Earlier last week, lawyers for Obama and the DNC filed a joint motion to dismiss Berg's lawsuit. The fact that the DNC joined in the dismissal request has Berg fuming, believing his party's leaders have ignored his pleas for proof in order to favor their chosen candidate over a rank-and-file constituent.

"I think it's outrageous," Berg said. "The Democratic National Committee should be ensuring the Democratic Party and the public that they have a qualified candidate up there. To file a joint motion is like they're in cahoots.

"Since then, I have asked by way of press release that Howard Dean resign, because (the DNC members) are not fulfilling their duties," Berg said.

"The DNC has a responsibility to all Democrats in this country to make sure that all of their candidates are properly vetted and properly qualified," Berg added. "I think it's really an outrage to the 18-plus million people who voted for Obama and the people who donated more than $425 million to him under false pretenses."

(Story continues below)

Berg is frustrated, not only with his own party's leadership for allegedly not investigating Obama's background, but also with the major news outlets for failing as well.

"I should also be suing the national media and their disgrace for not properly vetting, inspecting or checking on Barack Obama.

"Look what they're doing to Governor Palin: They're opening up her closet doors, they're going through everything personal, but no one has ever gone after Obama. It doesn't make sense," Berg said.

Obama's website counters Berg's claims with links to articles that affirm the validity of his citizenship and an image of a Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, born in Honolulu, Aug. 4, 1961. The webpage is part of the Obama campaign website's "Fight the Smears" section, an effort to prevent reports that Obama claims are false from disseminating as damaging rumors.

Berg acknowledges that as long as his lawsuit remains outstanding, the public will talk, and he told WND he wants Obama to quickly prove him wrong or the court to quickly prove him right.

"I've been on about 50 radio shows around the country," Berg said, "and on every one I've put out a challenge: Barack Obama, if I'm wrong, just come forth with certified copies of these documents and I'll close down the case."

Berg told WND, "I've had 19 million hits on my website. …Those people talk to other people, now we're up to 20, 30, 40 million people who are aware of this controversy, and it's going to drastically affect the entire election."

When asked what he would do if the DNC succeeded in getting his case dismissed, Berg said he would "immediately file an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and if we don't get a fair ruling there, immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court."

"We're dealing with the U.S. Constitution and it must be followed," Berg explained. "I want the Constitution enforced; that's my main reason for doing this.

"The real outrage is that there's nothing in our system that provides that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and correct before he or she runs, and that safeguard should be put into our system by law," Berg said.

WHAT CAUSED OUR ECONOMIC CRISIS?


YOU CANNOT VOTE RESPONSIBLY,
INTELLIGENTLY,
IF YOU DO NOT ASK YOURSELF HOW OUR COUNTRY
GOT INTO ITS CURRENT ECONOMIC CRISIS,
AND THEN SEARCH FOR THE ANSWER.
WATCH THE VIDEO ON THE SITE
OFFERED BELOW:

HOW DO THE TAX REBATES PROPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS REALLY WORK? Explanation of Tax Rebate Program debated in Congress


......................

If you don't understand the Democrats' version of tax refunds, maybe this will help explain it:
50,000 people went to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due.
The team was about to mail refunds when a group of Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out the ticket refunds based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness.
Originally the refunds were to be paid based on the price each person had paid for the tickets. Unfortunately that meant most of the refund money would be going to the ticket holders that had purchased the most expensive tickets. This, according to the DNC, is considered totally unfair. A decision was then made to pay out the refunds in this manner:
People in the $10 seats will get back $15. After all, they have less money to spend on tickets to begin with. Call it an "Earned Income Ticket Credit." Persons "earn" it by having few skills, poor work habits, and low ambition, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.
People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because it "seems fair."
People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don't need a refund. After all, if they can afford a $50 ticket, they must not be paying enough taxes.
People in the $75 luxury box seats will each have to pay an additional $25 because it's the "right thing to do".
People walking past the stadium that couldn't afford to buy a ticket for the game each will get a $10 refund, even though they didn't pay anything for the tickets. They need the most help. Sometimes this is known as Affirmative Action.
Now do you understand?
If not, contact Representative Nancy Pelosi, Senator Ted Kennedy or Senator Hillary Clinton for assistance.

DO NOT BE FOOLED: OBAMA IS 100% PRO-ABORTION

October 01, 2008
“Pro-Life, Pro-Obama” website launched

by Thomas Peters

As proof that “the best lie is a bold lie,” I give you the quote of the day:

“Can you be pro-life and support Senator Obama? The answer - upon even a moment’s reflection - is ‘unequivocally yes.’” (Doug Kmiec, ProLife-ProObama)

Kmiec has jumped the shark. He had once crafted perhaps the single best justification argument for a pro-Obama vote, but now this … this is all-out vote pandering.

The idea that Catholics can honestly determine that Obama is pro-life “upon even a moment’s reflection” is simply absurd beyond argument, looking at the facts. And deciding after a moment’s reflection? I’m positive that claim does not even apply to Kmiec himself!

Kmiec surely took more than a moment’s reflection to support Obama. In fact, he took years.

Kmiec is throwing all of his eggs into the Obama basket to win over the “Catholic vote,” including his previous record: “As Ronald Reagan’s legal counsel and as a dean and professor at Catholic University and Notre Dame, I have worked to put the law on the side of life where it belongs.”

The point? “Catholic University and Notre Dame hired me! See? I’m Catholic. You can trust me.”

Kmiec is the face of Obama’s Catholic support. And I’m exasperated by him using his faith to deceive fellow Catholics and make his (arguable) conclusions obligatory upon the rest of us. He is systematically challenging and making a mockery out of every Catholic voter’s guide issued by the American bishops, he also makes a shambles of the process by which Catholics are called to inform their conscience, and frankly … he demonstrates either a deep ignorance or a pathological inability to admit the shortcomings of his candidate.

Kmiec is essentially saying that Catholics must vote for a candidate who can only be called “pro-life” despite his own intention to unequivocally support universal access to abortion. If Obama doesn’t want to be pro-life in the proper sense, how are we being pro-life in the proper sense by voting for him?

Let me be very clear: what I take issue with here, specifically, is Kmiec’s claim that Obama is somehow a natural or obvious choice for Catholic voters. To say that, one must simply dissent from the Church’s teaching that abortion, and the legal support of abortion is gravely wrong.

If Kmiec claims to be a Catholic in good standing, a Catholic to whom other Catholics can look with confidence, I’d like to see one example where he has read the recent writings of Catholic bishops on this and related topics.

Endlessly complaining about the persecution one has received from lay Catholics is an empty self-martyrdom if one continues to obstinately avoid dialogue with the shepherds of the Church.

Catholics know this, and Kmiec should know better. If his position is so obviously the Catholic one, why is he scared to approach the shepherds of the Church - the guardians of what truly is Catholic - with his argument?

I predict we can expect a well-organized media onslaught of Kmiec-clone arguments in the remaining weeks leading up to the election. Sadly PACs and grassroots political organizations frequently have better access to the Catholic faithful than do our own priests and bishops.

But don’t be fooled, don’t just trust the “experts” - listen to what the bishops are saying. I would challenge anyone to find what Doug Kmiec is saying, printed-up in a voting guide issued by the U.S. Bishops this year.

You won’t.

ARE YOU REALLY A CATHOLIC? I MEAN REALLY!

..........................................

JOIN ME
ON CATHOLIC VOTE.COM

Join me on CatholicVote.com. It is an exciting opportunity to be part of the start of something new. We can help shape the movement and have a voice in its future.

I hope you will join.

www.catholicvote.com