[Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma

[No Weatherman]

ACS:

> In sane moral outlook, moral opprobrium is attached to *what you do*.
> Serial felonious vandalism is really bad. But there's no sane moral
> outlook that makes blowing up storefronts, police cars, and phone
> booths the equivalent of the largest act of mass murder ever
> committed.

The only distinction you make is in the SCALE of the vandalism
involved. By your standard, the 9-11 terrorists are not terrorists,
they are vandals who committed mass murder because there is no legal
charge for terrorism. It's a word that's not in your vocabulary.
Amazing.

But I'll bite your hook and observe that if The Weatherman had the
same means at their disposal as the 9-11 jihadists, THEY WOULD HAVE
USED IT. As you pointed out, they were an unsophisticated gang of
idiots who happened to be led around by a selfish pig named Bill Ayers
— Barack Obama's close personal and professional associate who does
not regret detonating bombs and destroying public property in his
attempt to overthrow the US government. They had bad intentions and
they announced their decision to escalate their war against America by
killing humans in their future attacks. It went sideways for them when
they accidentally blew themselves up and it went even more sideways
when a faction of The Weathermen killed two police officers. Faction
or not, Ayers knew he was close enough to the murders to know that he
would go down with the BLF. So he went underground with his wife,
hence the name Weather Underground..

And the only man in Chicago who didn't know about Ayers' past is that
Harvard-trained lawyer Barack Obama — the same man who never knew his
"father-like figure" pastor was a virulent anti-Semite who hates
America. Obama must have missed that day in class when they taught how
to follow reality.

>> You're the one exploiting their memories because if we apply your
>> logic to the 9-11 terrorists, which includes your definitions, then
>> they were ordinary vandals who also committed murder.
>
> Non sequitur goes here. People who did not commit murder are not
> responsible for committing murder. People who did commit murder are. I
> suspect, however, that this is already clear to you.

People who intend to commit murder but are too incompetent to pull it
off are very clear to me. Same as the people who killed two police
officers in the Brinks job.

>> By your definition they were not terrorists. Try to be consistent, it'll help
>> you to appear honest.
>>
>> ". . . to be fair, if you read Liddy's biography, as I have, and if
>> you listen to him on the radio, as I do, then you'd know that Liddy
>> justifies his illegal activities by arguing that America was fighting
>> a two-front war at the time — one in Nam and the other on the streets
>> of the US.
>>
>> "You don't have to agree with his argument, but it has its merits [...]
>
> Oh, here we go, Doug. Why don't we discuss what you think the merits
> of that argument are? Can we please do that? Why do you think a
> traitor is worth listening to?

The merits are exactly as I stated: "For example, the Weather
Underground (known as the Weathermen at that time) had declared war on
America, ostensibly because of the Vietnam War, and they served notice
to the media that they intended to detonate bombs at key strategic
targets to make their point. Obviously, this does not justify Liddy's
illegal activities, but it substantiates his point."

I overstated my case. Liddy's argument had one merit. America was
fighting a two-front war.

And since you asked about listening to a traitor, I presume traitors
rub you the wrong way. How do you feel about Barack Obama obtaining
his primary executive experience by serving on the board of a
foundation established by a traitor?

>> If you read my post in context, I was not arguing that Obama is not a
>> NBC. My point was that the msm has not reported on many of these
>> legitimate questions surrounding his candidacy and I put together a
>> short punch list of some of those questions. Our exchange is proof
>> that we simply do not have many hard facts about Obama. But there are
>> some very interesting developments in that case as well as on the
>> Kenyan front.
>
> Right. They've asked him to produce his birth certficate. You can find
> an electronic reproduction of the certificate on Obama's website. You
> can find photographs of the actual certificate on Factcheck.org, which
> is the same place you can find Barack Obama's birth announcement. You
> can find the words "natural born citizen" in the US Constitution, and
> you can find the requirements for US citizenship -- jus sanguinus
> (which he has, through his mother) or jus soli (which he has, because
> Hawaii is American territory) -- in 700 years of Anglo-American common
> law. This is not mysterious. This is obvious.

US Citizenship is not the same as NBC and you know it. In fact, it's
obvious. And you can find his own admission of his dual citizenship on
his official website.

He's in a pickle now and a birth certificate won't get him out which
is probably why his attorneys are fighting the complaint. Just
yesterday they filed a motion to delay discovery:

http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/29-berg-outraged-obama-a-dnc-file-motion-to-prevent-concurrent-discovery

If it's as obvious as you say it is (and it's not), then why doesn't
Obama produce the hard evidence and be rid of the suit? Because it's
not so obvious. The irony is that Obama is a constitutional lawyer. If
the answer to this question is as obvious as you maintain, then why
hasn't he resolved it and moved on?

You need to face the hard cold fact that it's not as obvious as you
think it is, just like terrorists are not vandals and Alice Palmer did
not set up the coffee at Ayers' house. You have repeatedly undermined
your own credibility in this exchange instead of making honest
arguments based upon established facts.

And I want to be honest here by saying I DON'T KNOW HOW he can
establish his NBC once he admitted his dual citizenship. I'm not a
lawyer. But I know that if I was running for president and I had 9
million PUMAs (including Bill Clinton) and most of the Republican
Party questioning my eligibility for POTUS, I would make my case and
end the question. He's going to have to answer the question sooner or
later. But just like the Ayers question, it sure looks like he's
hiding something.

> The media is not commenting on questions about Obama's nationality
> because questions about his nationality are a naked smear. A lie. A
> racist one, at that, just like -- for instance -- your decision to
> only refer to him as "Barack Hussein Obama."

Anything goes in this race whether you like it or not. The media has
savaged Sarah Palin with every conceivable smear imaginable and I see
most of the smears repeated here. But Barak Obama (someone wrote me
offlist to suggest laying off the Hussein; I don't agree with the
argument but I agree with the objective — they said it was an
unnecessary barrier to many of my points) has raised questions about
his qualification to hold the office of POTUS. It's not a question
about "nationality," as you say, it's a question about his NBC which
he has not answered. Calling it racism is just plain stupid. But it's
an effective way to evade the subject. RACISM!!!!!! Please be honest.
If Obama is not a NBC, it does not make me a racist. It makes him a
non-NBC.

>>> The board was appointed by the people who claim they appointed the
>>> board; the only person listed by name in the letter: Adele Simmons,
>>> Debbie Leff, and Patricia Graham. Ayers used the "royal we" in
>>> reference to the organization, a phrasing that would be syntactically
>>> bizarre if he had been the only one working with Simmons, Leff, and
>>> Graham. If he had been referring only to himself, English *does* have
>>> a first-person singular pronoun.
>>
>> The "royal" we is your interpretation that is supported by the same
>> evidence for my interpretation. And Ayers aint talking to nobody. You
>> could be right and I could be right. But we both can't be right. And
>> as stated before, these are the legitimate questions that a healthy
>> press would normally investigate.
>
> The issue has been investigated. The article by Stanley Kurtz -- the
> most hostile possible investigator -- reveals no ongoing relationship,
> merely a possible involvement in his appointment to the board of
> directors. This is literally the best that the most hostile
> investigator can produce.

No, Kurtz and Diamond have raised questions that need answers and if
CNN's recent report on Ayers is a sample of things to come, then you
better brace yourself for every reporter in America picking up those
questions. You really sound like someone in denial.

> Let me remind you of the chain of evidence you're trying to get me to
> follow: (1) Obama is a Manchurian Candidate, because (2) he had a
> long-standing relationship with a 60s radical, which is established
> because (3) one quarter of the votes for his confirmation to the board
> of a nonprofit funded by a Nixon ambassador came from that person,
> which is established because of (4) a syntactically ambiguous sentence
> in a letter nestled amongst '70 linear feet' of nonprofit records,
> found by (5) an incredibly hostile right-wing commentator. Is that it?
> That's the best you can find?

I'll quote Diamond again because you have not answered it:

·	"a young entrepreneur comes up with a great idea for a new product
but has no money to finance its development, marketing and production.
·	"He approaches a well-known venture capital firm in Silicon Valley
(where I have lived, practiced law and taught since 1995) and secures
$50 million in funding.
·	"He then recruits a prominent engineering professor from a major
university for his board of directors.
·	"And then without any discussion with the entrepreneur or the
venture capital firm that professor proceeds on his or her own to
recruit another board member and announces, unilaterally, to the VC
firm and to the founding entrepreneur that this individual is to be
the Chairman of the board and President of the new company.
·	"Oh, and by the way, this individual is a recent law school graduate
who has no background in the company's line of business, no financial
resources of his own to bring to the table, and no contacts with
others in the business of the company."
http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamaayers-update-letters-show-bill.html

This passes your smell test but it's a stinkfest to me. You're
satisfied, I'm not. By the way, has anyone told you that there's no
such thing as the Tooth Fairy?

>> In Obama's case, however, such an
>> investigation would constitute racism because only racists hold Obama
>> accountable.
>>
>>> If deliberately misread to imply that Ayers was involved directly in
>>> the appointment of the board of directors, this makes him a fourth
>>> member of the selection committee, not the person with the sole
>>> responsibility for selecting Obama. Incidentally, this, itself would
>>> be bizarre: board committees generally have an odd number of members
>>> to establish clear majorities.
>>
>> THE WHOLE THING IS BIZARRE. What in the world was Obama doing with
>> Ayers?
>
> The incredibly controversial work of creating parent-teacher
> associations in poor black neighborhoods. I mean, those were basically
> the extent of the activities of the CAC's grantees: attempts to get
> parents involved in the education of their kids. This is not
> controversial, radical stuff, except to the extent that if you're
> funding community organizations in poor black neighborhoods, you're
> funding left-wing organizations. The right, for whatever reason, has
> no particular attachment to funding organizations in black
> neighborhoods.
>
> I wonder why that is?

It's all about racism, isn't it? Only racists challenge Obama.

>> And any way you look at it, we know for sure that Ayers was NOT
>> just a guy who lived in Obama's neighborhood. Why did Obama lie about
>> that?
>
> In the context of being introduced as the new person running for the
> Hyde Park state Senate seat (the context in which the question was
> asked) that was his most important relationship to Obama: some guy who
> also lives in Hyde Park and was hosting a fundraiser.

This is incredible. And even more incredible is your suave ability to
move from one narrative to another without admitting the possibility
that your grasp of the facts is rather slippery. Two weeks ago you
held that "the slenderest of threads" united Obama to Ayers:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-September/056559.html

But the launching-his-political-career-at-Ayers-house thing snapped that thread.

Just yesterday you declared that Alice Palmer set up the function at
Ayers house:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-October/057137.html

But CNN blew up your story like a Weatherman bomb:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-October/057168.html

So you moved to your next story: "Some guy who lives in Hyde Park."

Why don't you just admit that no one has all the facts about Obama.
That includes me and you. He's written two memoirs that reveal nothing
about him. It's not the end of the world to admit ignorance. This is
where Joe went off the tracks. I caught him in so many inconsistencies
(lies) that he chose to abandon the forum rather than concede. He'd of
done himself a big favor if he simply admitted the truth. You would
too. I do not have all the answers and I will not pretend that I do.
But you have moved around so much to explain away hard questions about
Obama that it's laughable.

>> If he didn't know Ayers was a terrorist, why didn't he say so sooner?
>
> Because only right-wing lunatics thought the association was important
> enough to comment on, and Obama is not in the business of commenting
> on the fever-dreams of right-wing lunatics?

Can any Obama supporter make an argument without resorting to name calling?

Never mind. You leave the distinct impression that if there's a
smoking gun connecting Ayers to Obama it would bother you. Otherwise
you would not be so defensive. You would not put up such passionate
arguments, albeit not grounded in facts. And you would just say, "So
what? Barack Obama pals around with a notorious domestic terrorist who
declared war on the USA — what's the big deal?"

But that you don't make this argument indicates to me that an
established close, personal connection would not sit well with you,
and I believe that's a good thing.