Freedom of speech? Not in Obama?s America...

[WINEX_IHB]

[quote author="lawyerliz" date=1219971844]Ok, Winex, how many people were working on that Fund thing, and

what was it supposed to do?



If the guy is guilty of something, he's right there, why isn't he arrested.

Statute of Limitations or some other reason?



If there were 5 people and they met every week, that's one thing.



If there were 50 or 150 people and they met a couple of times a year

that is something else.



If the group was doing something useful and good, why should O resign

from it?



And I really hate it when both sides start name calling. It is not

necessary, and should not be part of this blog, except, perhaps, for

realtors. Or, dishonest brokers.



But not each other.</blockquote>


Liz, if you want to find out more about Obama's involvement in the Ananberg Challenge, I would strongly recommend following Stanley Kurtz's columns. He regularly writes for the National Review and the Weekly Standard (You can find an excellent article at ). New news on the subject is developing as we speak. Obama and friends have managed to keep these public records locked away even though there was no legal justification to do so. It was only on Tuesday of this week that the Richard J. Dailey Library of the University of Chicago (where the records were housed) agreed to allow reporters to examine the documents.



I can hardly be considered an expert on this topic. I'll be more than happy to share what I know on the subject of William Ayers <img src="http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e113/montywade/P__Bill-Ayers.jpg" alt="" />and Bernardine Dohrn: <img src="http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Weather-Underground-21jul03d.jpg" alt="" />



I can't tell you how many people worked on the Ananberg Challenge, but I can tell you that Obama was the Chairman of the Board for the Ananberg Challenge, and that Ayers was the founder of the Ananberg Challenge and considered a guiding force. Obama assumed the position as Chairman of the Board only months before he started his first run for public office in 1995. Ayers and Dohrn held the fund raiser that launched Obama's public career in 1995. (At this point in time Obama was already involved with convicted felon Tony Rezko who is notable for his multiple felony convictions for influence peddling and subsidizing the purchase of Obama's mansion. But we are supposed to believe that this was purely a coincidence.)







Here are a few paragraphs from an article by Kurtz from last week. But as I said, this story is still developing. <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTgwZTVmN2QyNzk2MmUxMzA5OTg0ODZlM2Y2OGI0NDM=">Stanley Kurtz article</a>

<em>

Although the press has been notably lax about pursuing the matter, the full story of the Obama-Ayers relationship calls the truth of Obama?s account seriously into question. When Obama made his first run for political office, articles in both the Chicago Defender and the Hyde Park Herald featured among his qualifications his position as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation where Ayers was a founder and guiding force. Obama assumed the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office, and almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers. During Obama?s time as Annenberg board chairman, Ayers?s own education projects received substantial funding. Indeed, during its first year, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge struggled with significant concerns about possible conflicts of interest. With a writ to aid Chicago?s public schools, the Annenberg challenge played a deeply political role in Chicago?s education wars, and as Annenberg board chairman, Obama clearly aligned himself with Ayers?s radical views on education issues. With Obama heading up the board and Ayers heading up the other key operating body of the Annenberg Challenge, the two would necessarily have had a close working relationship for years (therefore ?exchanging ideas on a regular basis?). So when Ayers and Dorhn hosted that kickoff for the first Obama campaign, it was not a random happenstance, but merely further evidence of a close and ongoing political partnership. Of course, all of this clearly contradicts Obama?s dismissal of the significance of his relationship with Ayers.



This much we know from the public record, but a large cache of documents housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), is likely to flesh out the story. That document cache contains the internal files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The records in question are extensive, consisting of 132 boxes, containing 947 file folders, a total of about 70 linear feet of material. Not only would these files illuminate the working relationship between Obama and Bill Ayers, they would also provide significant insight into a web of ties linking Obama to various radical organizations, including Obama-approved foundation gifts to political allies. Obama?s leadership style and abilities are also sure to be illuminated by the documents in question.



Cover-Up?

Unfortunately, I don?t yet have access to the documents. The Special Collections section of the Richard J. Daley Library agreed to let me read them, but just before I boarded my flight to Chicago, the top library officials mysteriously intervened to bar access. Circumstances strongly suggest the likelihood that Bill Ayers himself may have played a pivotal role in this denial. Ayers has long taught at UIC, where the Chicago Annenberg Challenge offices were housed, rent-free. Ayers likely arranged for the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to be housed in the UIC library, and may well have been consulted during my unsuccessful struggle to gain access to the documents. Let me, then, explain in greater detail what the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) records are, and how I have been blocked from seeing them.</em>

<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp">Weekly Standard Article</a>

 

[EvaLSeraphim_IHB]

[quote author="Nude" date=1219985610]This is mild (and only going to get more heated) compared to 2004.</blockquote>


I think it <em>could</em> be that way, but I don't think it necessarily <em>has</em> to be that way. Let's say we were talking about universal health care. The conversation could end with "You f&cking;Socialist liberal who doesn't know anything!" and "You fascist @sshole." Alternately, it could end with "I hope you enjoy your healthcare and that you don't notice all the taxes you will pay for it," and "I wish you good health and that you live a long life and die peacefully in your sleep, because dealing with those insurance companies is a pain."



I know which conversation I would rather have, and which would be more productive to get other people to listen to one's point of view.



BTW, I know I seem to be responding most to your statements this week. It hasn't been my intent to pick on you. It's just that you have said some things that in the back of my mind I have thought "that doesn't sound quite right." So I looked it up and responded to clarify, and not for any other purpose.

 

[acpme_IHB]

national review and weekly standard are HARDLY objective sources. come on now. you know conservatives don't take anything from moveon.org seriously so in all fairness, using some piece from national review to drudge up a conspiracy about barack obama is pretty lame.



if you're going to work in academia, public service, and sit on the board of community organizations, you're going to work with a whole cast of characters. you don't get to pick who you else happens to be involved in these groups.



so i decided to do a little research for myself instead of just taking this conspiracy theory at face value. the annenberg foundation i'm familiar with my from alma mater -- it's one of the largest foundations in the world. the annenberg institute's website says the successor organization to the CAC is the Chicago Public Education Fund. past and current board members of the CAC/CPEF include:



bill ayer and bunch of other chicago academics

barack obama, of course

kenneth griffin - citadel investments (one of the largest hedge funds)

sam zell's wife

past presidents of UIUC and northwestern univ

ed rust jr (former chairman of the American Enterprise Institute which is a well-known conservative think tank. he was on Bush's transition advisory team for education reform, sits on the No Child Left Behind commission. this guy obviously sits heavy on the right.)

susan pritzer - pritzers are a prominent real estate family (pritzer realty, hyatt hotels). her husband are also sits on the board of the AEI.



so from the looks of it, these organizations, like most other well-known and well-funded community organizations, attract the who's who of the local community. to me, it looks like they don't come together because of their political affiliation, but in spite of it. so linking people together that serve on a philanthropic organization is just plain stupid.



after doing my own 5 minutes of googling, this story has about as much credibility to me as bush sr in league with the bin ladens because they were invested in the same private equity fund.

 

[HB Bear Too_IHB]

After the trampling of civil liberties that has taken place over the last eight years, any criticism of Obama by The Right on civil liberties grounds ought to be recognized as the pure and unadulterated hypocrisy that it is.



The Right has zero credibility and moral standing here.

 

[aradman_IHB]

<em>This isn't just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood, but not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis" William Ayers was the leader of the Weather Underground. He was involved in the bombing of the New York City police headquarters in 1970, the US Capitol Building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972.



After 9/11/2001 (after working side by side with Obama for over 6 years) Ayers was quoted by the New York Times as saying "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."



No one is claiming that Obama was a member of the Weather Underground when he was a child. (But it should be noted that Obama was 11 when the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon, not 8. So it's obvious that Obama can't even be honest here) </em>





Your statement above about Obama's age is a classic example of cherry picking the facts (like your president), taking things out of context, and putting words in people's mouth. The only person who is not being "honest" is you, sir, not the Obama camp. Here's a direct quote from the obama website: "Obama Turned Eight In August 1969, The Days Of Rage Occurred In October 1969. Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961. He turned eight on August 4, 1969. The Days of Rage, in which William Ayers participated, occurred in October 1969. " Just to be on the safe side, I fact checked Obama's birth date, and also the claim that the Days of Rage did in fact occur in October, 1969.



As you can see, Obama never claimed that he was 8 years old when the Pentagon bombing occurred in 1972. The Days of Rage and the Pentagon bombing were 2 separate incidents. You've taken a line from Obama saying he was 8, and then very conveniently added your own piece about the Pentagon bombing in 1972, and then just helped yourself to quote Obama saying he was 8 when the Pentagon bombing occurred, something that is quite simply not true.



What you've done here is a good example of juxtaposition of facts to your liking, in order to call other people liars. And of course, it's "obvious" you are the one who's being dishonest.



As the other poster mentioned, digging up articles from the Weekly Standard or other right wing leaning publications or blogs is hardly proof for your claims, nor does it give you the right to present whatever is written in these articles as "facts", and it especially doesn't give you the right to call other people dishonest when you have just been caught lying yourself.