Recently in Government

Category

Creepy, disgusting William Ayers, when a reporter on the street near Ayers's residence in Chicago on October 23, 2008, was told by Ayers, "this is my property - please leave it." Then Ayers went inside and called the local police, who showed up, greeted by Ayers.

Ayers was wearing -- ho-hum -- a black shirt with a large red star emblazoned on the front -- while enjoying his freedom as a freeman in a free land, complete with privately owned property he accepts that he has rights to protect, reviles the freedom of the reporter and a free media, and like the predictable, communist fascist Bill Ayers is, calls for force to "deal with 'the problem'" of a free press daring to ask him questions.

Among the questions asked of Ayers by that reporter (video link here) was, "are you sorry for your acts...are you still an anarchist". Ayers ignored that and entered his private property, freely, breezily, dismissively, another day in the life of a free man enjoying his freedom.

This video was shown today on Bill O'Reilly's THE O'REILLY FACTOR on Fox News.

If there is a "Top Ten Big Lies by Obama" list (among the "155 lies" by Barack Obama, that have already been documented) that is perpetuated by Obama and others among today's Left, it is that Ayers is somehow "respectable" and is assigned or entrusted with a position of authority such that he is allowed ongoing influence over anyone -- in his case, however, that he's now promoted as "a respected educator" and included in academics is the essence of how his corruption has eeked through the minds and wayward ethics of others in some wonkish bastardization of what education is.

The man's a gutless coward and even though he speaks with a soft voice, he's still gutless, untrustworthy coward, a disgusting creep.

One thing that academics fails to do and that is, include reality in much of its lexicon. Academics falls repeatedly for vile characters because they opine with a unique voice -- in other words, because they're unique, represent, then, something or someone "noteworthy" -- without consideration of the fact that their objects of focus have, literally, unconscienably bad minds. Ayers is one of those.

References:

Obama's Documented Lies: 155 and still growing

Barack Obama-Bill Ayers: Stanley Kurtz Makes the Connection

Obama Ad Lies About Obama's Infanticide Vote

NYT's Ayers-Obama Whitewash by Stanley Kurtz

Inside Obama's Acorn by Stanley Kurtz

From Ace of Spades, OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN FINANCE FRAUD GAINS TRACTION, an excellent but horrifying expose of what The Monster is doing and continues to do, seemingly unabated.

Moreover, Obama yesterday sent out another fund-raising solicitation email declaring his "need" for "$10." from every recipient. Apparently, he's not pleased that his largesse is a paltry "$605 Million."

The Los Angeles Times today publishes a refreshingly candid article about this, which is, as is to be expected, ridiculed by the Obama "bots" besetting the internet. Fortunately, the article is unaffected by the comments -- report is informative and revealing -- while the comment-bot-malignments have by now become the same, droll gutter-wash I've seen all over the internet by same.

The article: WITH $605 MILLION ALREADY, OBAMA ASKS ONLY $10 MORE OF EACH OF US.

With all that dough, Obama and donors don't need any more money from the rest of the U.S. taxpayers. In fact, I'm thinking, they owe the taxpayers quite a lot of restitution.

OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP (YouTube video)
Attorney Philip Berg makes his case, convincingly, that Barack Obama is not Constitutionally qualified for the U.S. Presidency.

Many of us voters have been raising this issue repeatedly and for most of the same reasons that Berg is now pursuing through a federal court case -- which Obama has attempted to have dismissed, then postponed when his motion to dismiss was denied -- so I am pleased to see more exposure of this potentially incindiary issue (and ongoing likely crime by Obama and the Democratic Party).

READ:

THIS COULD BE A GAME CHANGER -- from American Thinker

Interesting question posed in comments section at American Thinker, not raised in the Berg video:

Posted by: DanSchwartz - Oct 11, 12:35 PM

One question not raised by Berg was Obama's trip to Pakistan as a college student. This was not mentioned in either of his two books; but he admitted it in a speech on Sunday, April 5th in San Francisco. This was documented in the New York Times on April 10th at: [www.nytimes.com].

The problem is that at time in the early 1980's, it was unlawful for Americans to travel to Pakistan, so he had to travel there on his Indonesian passport.

And Michelle Obama proves (if the story is true) that she really is monstrous in a phone call to an African news source (African Press International, or, "API") - a conversation that, if true, affirms the opinions about Michelle Obama that she's more than a troubled person.

The Obama campaign says it's "bogus - a lie" as a story (never occured), yet the media source in Africa says, if contacted, they'll verify the story and releases their phone number for that purpose: (to call from the USA), 011-4793299739.

From WorldNetDaily's story about Michelle Obama's alleged phone call and comments:

The Obama campaign immediately denied the telephone call happened.

Tommy Vietor, a campaign spokesman, told Byron York on the National Review Online blog "The Corner," the conversation didn't happen.

"The answer is no, it's not real, the report is made up. She did not speak to the organization," Vietor said.

However, in an e-mail to WND, a man who identified himself as API's "Chief Editor Korikr" confirmed the exchange.

"API hereby confirms to you that the story is true and if the huge interest on this particular story continues, we will post the recording on our website in the next immediate days.

"When we published the story we did not intend to cause any chaos but we are shocked by the huge interest the story is receiving from the Americans and the American media," he continued.

"Mrs. Obama called us just to ask API to stop joining the mainstream hate online media that is trying to destroy her husband's opportunity to get the presidency," he wrote.

Let's see if the Obama-aligned media, so-called, in the U.S. will acknowledge with any seriousness, either story, or both (though the first one is the zinger -- Obama's qualification to be President, or lack thereof, and his lies inorder to seize the Presidency if he isn't qualified and how it is that any organization in the U.S. could and might exist that would sponsor such corruption [that'd be terrorism-times-infinity]).

Also, the most deplorable negation about the Obama-aligned media is that they've ignored this immensely significant story (discussed on more than a few websites by concerned citizens, many of whom have provided professional examination of the Obama-"documents" he's released and all concluded they were fraudulent).

Obama may not be qualified under our U.S. Constitution for the U.S. Presidency -- and just as important a story is why has Obama behaved with pretense that he was qualified if he isn't (what's his motivation for lying and in such profound terms).

We appear to be, as a nation, on the cusp of either remaining civilized or else descended into a third-world anarchy. These two stories reflect rotten roots with pretty buds exposed: either we're intelligent enough to confront and eradicate this sort of decay, or, we aren't and our collective produce is desperately foul.

OBAMA CAMPAIGN ISSUES TALKING POINTS TO MEDIA AHEAD OF DEBATE -- Drudge Flash...

The scurrilous, cheating email from the cheaters reads pretty much like any crib-sheet sent to other cheaters: the Obama campaign relies on the willing, useful fools in the media to join in, thus, rendering cheating the common fare: "it's not really wrong if everyone does it."

Another lowdown, sliding scale by the amoral Left: just when you think they won't sink any lower, they do. The issue is, cheating IS wrong, even when it's done with a great big smile and giant type or a bellowing "spokesperson". I'ts not unusual (and it is smart) for political campaigns to keep in close contact with media as to "talking points" advised and deployed by a campaign, but, what the Obama campaign has done and continues to do is "co-campaign" with many in the media, going so far as to secure modified -- or, propagandized -- content in the media posing as neutral (thus, it's propaganda and "media" is reduced to political activists, devoid of journalistic character).

This IS a process of corruption, a corrupting process if not yet another violation of terms by Obama and campaign and by the complicit media involved, to such an extent that it removes our civilization's very regard for language: "tax cuts" actually means "welfare," "spread (the wealth) around" actually means "taking individual assets by government force," things of this critical nature. And accusing political opponents or "issues in the way" as "smears" and "distractions" respectively, is itself smearing, demeaning, lying and avoiding discussing liabilities, all of which Obama is notoriously common in doing.

I note IN that crib-sheet from the Obama campaign, that they're again efforting to identify Obama's relationships with shady, corrupt, and/or despicable characters as "distractions" ("from the economy" or whatever else they can figure out there to fill-in the blanks).

In which case, they're too late. Obama's got more relationships with the despicable than can be explained by happenstance or even stupidity (both tacts he's tried), and, the reality is, relationships define who individuals are. Meet or find oneself mired in a problem, get unmired as quickly as possible and refuse to return to the mire, but, in Obama's case, he's sought out individuals with bad character and despicable intents and messages, indicating his individual choice. And by remaining in ongoing relationships with people of ill-or-low-regard, he's secured his own identity as one as despicable as theirs.

Reading:
PINCH YOURSELF - by Melanie Phillips (On Obama's scurrilous relationships)

Listening to Obama with interest in the Presidential debates -- not because I like what I hear but because what Obama says is decidedly nonsensical -- and attempting to confront his nonsense with Liberals afterward is an exercise in futility: because (on average, in my experience and the experience of many Conservatives I correspond with) Liberals supporting Obama don't understand "business" -- be it small or large or anything in between -- and reject any information anyone not in Obama's Temple will express to them. And because they're not voting for what Obama says and plans to do, but on other factors, like vanity.

THUS, read this from Patterico:
OBAMA'S TAX PLAN AND SMALL BUSINESS

From Rush Limbaugh:
EXPLAINED: OBAMA'S LIES ABOUT RAISING TAXES ON SMALL BUSINESS

Obama does not know what he's talking about ("tax cuts" for "people making under $250,000.00 a year -- the majority of small businesses make under $250,000.00 a year...") , and he's selling snake-oil to people who either don't care that it's snake oil, or, they are not interested in electing anyone who might make sense, so they support Obama's nonsense, repeating it while themselves being unable to explain just what they're then repeating, what it may mean.

Obama harps about "tax cuts" when what he is describing, instead, is welfare as to those indivdiuals (not necessarily businesses, because Obama's selling his oil on this "$250,000.00" annual income figure by combining his pretense of being fair to "small business" and to individuals) who comprise his "90%" who he alleges he'll "cut taxes" for, even for the forty percent among those who don't pay federal income taxes (if you get a check from Obama and you haven't paid income taxes, you are not getting a "cut" or even an actual refund, but you're getting some of the personal property of other Americans that Obama has lifted so he can you off).

ON THE OTHER HAND, maybe Obama DOES know what he's talking about but he's using his snake-oil explanations to fool a lot of people who know very little to nothing about snake-oil.

Which is what I think Obama is doing: intentionally misleading people inorder to gain control over other people's property. Is there anything other than a deceptive Marxist? No, no there isn't.