The Shotgun Blog
« How to succeed in Politics | Main | Canadians question Harper Conservatives' drug strategy »
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Sarah Goes There
There. Finally the GOP launches an attack on Obama's association with a well-known radical left-wing terrorist.
Bill Ayers is a terrorist who bombed the Pentagon and the Capitol. Later, the group of which he was a leader planned and attempted to carry out what would have, up to that point, been the greatest act of domestic terrorism in the history of the United States - a bombing of an Army dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey.
But for a lucky break - the bombs detonated pre-maturely and killed some of the terrorists instead - there's no doubt that William Ayers would have murdered several dozen American soldiers along with their wives, girlfriends, and dates. All Ayers has to say about that is that he regrets that he didn't do enough in his war against the United States of America. It was in the home of this man that the political career of Barack Hussein Obama was launched.
Understand this carefully. Ayers is not, as Obama once claimed, simply some guy who lived in Obama's neighbourhood. He is a man who has had a long and close association with Obama. They served together and worked closely on the board of an education "reform" organization with a substantial budget.
Can you imagine the media reaction if a Republican were so closely linked to so many individual who were openly disloyal to the United States? His preacher - the man who performed his wedding, whose "church" he attended for twenty years, and who baptized his children - screams "God Damn America" from the pulpit. His friend waged a literal war against the United States and isn't even sorry for trying to murder American servicemen - and his political career began in the home of that friend.
McCain can still win this thing. The best way to destroy Obama is to challenge his patriotism - once we can get the financial crisis out of the way and off the front-pages - we need to use every moment that we have to spread the message, which is rooted in ample facts, that whatever else we know or don't know about Senator Obama, we do know that we have ample grounds on which to challenge his loyalty to the United States. It's a bad thing to unjustifiably challenge someone's patriotism - to argue that policy disagreements (over oh, let's say, taxation) are unpatriotic. it's altogether another thing, though, I would say to challenge someone's patriotism on the grounds that many of their closest associates are either openly disloyal towards - and in some cases sworn enemies of - the United States.
That's what I hate the most about Barack Obama. It's bad enough that he's a liberal. It's bad enough that he's a man who's walked into everything he's ever gotten in his life without accomplishing a single thing of note - beyond merely being there. What I hate the most is the idea that the degree of moral and patriotic feeling is so degraded in millions of Americans that they fail to recognize the warning signs that flash when this man speaks - the signs posted through his whole background - that whatever cause this man is serving, it sure isn't the American cause.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on October 4, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e201053534cc67970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sarah Goes There:
Comments
"once WE can get the financial crisis","WE need to use every moment that WE have to spread the message","that whatever else WE know or don't know about Senator Obama", "WE do know that we have ample grounds",
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on October 4, 2008
Who exactly is the WE? You're not an American or have you come down with Zebulon Punkosis? A psychological condition that usually afflicts western Canadians into believing that they are American.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-10-04 2:17:14 PM
Obama Alabama is the Dark Brown version of the Manchurian Candidate.Think Raymond Shaw in black face. The late Richard Condon author of the Manchurian Candidate would have a field day assessing Barak (call me Barry) Obama, created by Aunt Ophra with all her money and big tits.What do American's think they will get from electing this
guy? Electing Obama will be disaster for the State of Israel. MacLeod
Posted by: jackmacleod | 2008-10-04 2:47:05 PM
Hey Stig, there'a lot of us Easterners that wish we could be Americans as well.
If any of you are interested, there was a novel written about this some 20 years or so ago. Written by one Fletcher Knebel, called The Dark Horse. He was the author of Seven days in May, so he does have some credentials. Fiction of course but..........
Posted by: atric | 2008-10-04 3:21:42 PM
An examination of the influence Saul Alinsky had on the young Obama is also crucial.
Alinsky is considered to be the first ‘community organizer'. Co-incidentally, well, anybody can do the research.
Place it against the subprime mortgate crisis, and it all starts to make sense.
They should have stopped at two chickens in every pot. Now look what the US has ‘progressed' into.
Palin is just taking up the traditional attack-dog role accorded vice-presidential candidates. She'll do a good job in exposing what ‘change' really means for the average US citizen, who's just been saddled with another $30,000 in household debt.
If this was about bailing out Wall Street, why such a high percentage of Democrats who were in favour of it? Check the voting records.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-10-04 3:31:53 PM
It's going to be funny watching Adam and his xenophobic buddies like Jack "Think Raymond Shaw in black face" MacLeod get more and more shrill as the McCain campaign comes completely unhinged in the weeks before the vote.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | 2008-10-04 4:05:44 PM
Hey Stig, there'a lot of us Easterners that wish we could be Americans as well.
Posted by: atric | 4-Oct-08 3:21:42 PM
There's a big difference in wanting to be an American, and believing that you are one when in fact you aren't. The belief that you are an American when you aren't makes Zebulon Punkosis easy to diagnose but is just the tip of the iceberg of more far reaching mental illness.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-10-04 4:22:41 PM
Wow - I expected more from Canada. Guess it's true that hate-speak knows no borders.
Adam, are you also head of your local militia? If you are enough of an idiot to spout that being on a school board with someone equals a close association, I'm guessing you are.
Let's hope this election finally pulls the rug out from idiots like you. We need in in the US, and you apparently need it in Canada. Grow up and don't print lies!
Posted by: Anna B | 2008-10-04 5:03:38 PM
Anna B, perhaps you can tell us what lies Adam has written?
Otherwise, fuck off.
Posted by: A proud Canadian | 2008-10-04 5:27:58 PM
how about McCain provide some reasonable solution to the financial crises instead of dreaming it goes out of the front pages. McCain voted for the bailout full of pork.
Posted by: obi-wan | 2008-10-04 5:39:14 PM
That may have been a bit rough, but I get pretty riled when some fucking doorknob yank sees fit to pass judgement on my country.
Posted by: A proud Canadian | 2008-10-04 5:39:19 PM
I am one American who thinks the Ayers discussion is legitimate. We are fighting a war on terror. I know that the Democrats have a problem admitting this. They would rather just negotiate with the terrorists. The left seems to be more alarmed by Guantanamo than by videotaped beheadings or suicide bombings. Ayers was part of a terrorist group(the Weathermen) who engaged in violence. Obama has referred to him as a friend and said that his crimes took place when he was eight. Yeah, well Charles Manson's crimes occurred before I was born but that doesn't make them any more acceptable.If Obama is to be the commander-in-chief at the time of a war on terrorism than he should be able to recognize what a terrorist is and be able to define the behavior. As someone who lost family on 9/11, I find it insulting when the left attempts to cover over Obama's apparent weakness on the terror issue or tries to come up with another b.s. conspiracy theory. Is their next theory that aliens from the planet Mongo knocked down the towers? Obama is wrong about Ayers. He is wrong when he tries to categorize terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Also, he is wrong when he claims that if elected Canada and western europe will commit far more troops to Afghanistan and other areas of the middle east. The Canadians are leaving Afghanistan in 2011 and public opinion will keep them from coming back. Public opinion in France and Germany are against further involvement in Afghanistan. Wake up America, Canada and Britain are exhausted and the most of the remaining western powers don't want to get involved. The U.N. will do nothing because Putin's Russia has veto power. Obama's election will not make Europe jump up and say "Let's send tens of thousands of troops". Obama's claim is as phony as his line that he will only raise taxes on the top 5% of wage earners. The man says that he will raise taxes on capital gains, corporate taxes(yet the company won't pass the additional cost on to you the consumer), and supposedly upper income taxes but that it won't effect most Americans. Obama is also wrong about Iraq. He was wrong about the surge. Biden was wrong when he said the surge won't work and that the country should be split into three seperate ones(one each for the Shiites, Sunnites, and the Kurds). Obama's also wrong when his campaign said that the defense budget might see some cuts. Great idea, cut defense in the middle of a war(funny, I don't think FDR did that). Obama's positions are a mix of the illogic(my tax increases will only effect the rich), flip flops(he now claims that he supports the death penalty and won't push for any gun control measures while before his presidential run he opposed the death penalty and supported a handgun ban), and downright lies( I was unaware of Rev. Wright's racists rants). Obama is ahead because of the credit crisis and the biased media coverage(Chris Matthews said that Obama gives him a tingly feeling up his leg. Gee, Chris didn't know you swung that way.). No one outside of FOX News seems to even question anything that Obama says. The problem for Obama is that if he gets in than he has to make decisions. He won't be able to spend his four years just blaming Bush for everything. He can stay on the left and get 1994ered in the next congressional elections or go to the center and risks irritating his base. What a dilemma? If Obama pulls out of Iraq too early(before the military's recommendations) then the resulting bloodshed will be on his hands. If his high taxes lead to a sharp reduction in job hirings than lets see how long those college kids stay in his corner. If he moves to use the fairness doctrine(which liberals never applied to television) to undermine talk radio or tries to prosecute Bush administration officials over Guatanamo then there will be a major backlash. If he tries to push gun control, gay marriage, or limit the death penalty's use then he will be going against a strong majority of Americans. Obama's victory in 2008 leads to Republican control of congress and presidency in 2012. Mark my words, he is just a younger and darker version of Jimmy Carter. In 1976,the left trashed a moderate like Ford and got Reagan four years later. In 2008, they are trashing a relative centrist like McCain and will get a nice conservative surprise(hopefully Bobby Jindal) in 2012.
Posted by: andrew | 2008-10-04 8:24:33 PM
The media is going to dump on Palin for having the audacity to question the messiah's past.We all have a few skeletons in the closet(I've got a whole cemetery),but to associate with known terrorists and then shrug it off as nothing is beyond the pale.Unfortunately it happens,our GG has been known to cavort with the FLQ and we have learned to accept it.
Posted by: wallyj | 2008-10-04 10:57:30 PM
The Ayers, Rezko furor is chump change compared to Rev. Wright. Why attack Ayers and not Wright? Ayers is white.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/04/north_carolina_republican_part.html
In a letter to the chairwoman of the North Carolina Republican Party, McCain asked her to take the ad down...
"From the beginning of this election, I have been committed to running a respectful campaign based upon an honest debate about the great issues confronting America today," McCain wrote. "I expect all state parties to do so as well. The television advertisement you are planning to air degrades our civics and distracts us from the very real differences we have with the Democrats. In the strongest terms, I implore you to not run this advertisement."
Posted by: DJ | 2008-10-04 11:28:11 PM
Could you imagine a bunch of white kids doing this for McCain? And if you could what would it be called?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEQz5dltmI
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-10-05 4:09:59 PM
But I guess a bunch white kids doing it for Obama is okay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM&feature=related
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-10-05 4:19:34 PM
Hey leftists be careful what you wish for! In 1976, the left had the media in its backpocket. In 1980, the Republicans won the senate and Reagan(the most conservative candidate since the 1920's) won big. The end result was 12 years of Republican presidents. In 1992, Clinton won and the Democrats controlled both houses of congress. In 1994, the Republicans captured both houses of congress. The end result was that Clinton had to tack center-right(welfare reform, expansions of federal crimes subject to the death penalty, end of national healthcare, balanced budgets). Yet, the Democrats still lost in 2000. In 1964, the media helped the Democrats win by trashing the image of the Republican candidate Barry Goldwater. The end result was big Republican congressional wins(in 1966 and 1968) and Nixon's election in 1968. The Republican party's problems are only temporary. History shows that we come back more powerful. Polls also show that even with the Obama media lovefest that more Americans consider themselves conservative(34-35%) than liberal(20%). So beware Obama, history and ideology are against you! Since 1980, the Republicans have succeeded in making America more conservative. After the 1994 elections, Clinton was only able to slow not stop the trend. Obama has supposedly turned his back on his leftist views to be more electable(particularly on social issues). Obama now claims to support the death penalty, Bush's faith based initiatives program, charter schools, missile defense(SDI) while opposing both gun control and gay marriage(yet he opposes DOMA and federal laws opposing gay marriage court rulings). Obama publicly adopted these positions because the Republicans won the battle on these issues. Death penalty support is around 70%(law in 36 of 50 states). 75% support right to bear arms and 48 states allow concealed carry(40 with only limited restrictions). These victories were because the Republican Party stuck to its guns and either won over the public(SDI, charter schools) or sided with the large majority of the public(death penalty, right to bear arms, faith based initiatives). The Republican Party is different compared to other conservative parties in the west. It is a party that addresses social as well as economic and foreign policy(also it seems to be far more electorally successful than Canada's right). The party speaks for the social conservative majority of Americans who favor school prayer, see no problem with posting the 10 commandments, want abstitence education promoted in schools, don't believe homosexuality should be discussed in a school setting, oppose affirmative action, and want to restrict abortion to rare exceptions(such as life of mother, rape, or incest which polls 45%-53%).(Polling shows that Americans oppose abortion after 1st trimester by 68%-25% and after 7 weeks when baby has nerve system and heart by 61%-34%). The conservative parties in Canada and Britain(like the Republican Party call for low taxes and less government). However, they fail to address the concerns of traditionalists voters in their countries. In discussing such issues as the death penalty, opposition to abortion, affirmative action, right to bear arms and sex education prehaps the conservative parties(of Canada, Britain, NZ,etc.) would be able to win over current Labour, Liberal, or even NDP supporters. After all, Thatcher's limited forays into the social issue realm(Section 28 law, death penalty, out-of-wedlock birth rate) seems to have improved her numbers among certain traditional Labour voters(blue collar). The Democrat's problem(besides the fact that high taxes and big government social spending don't work) is that they started a culture war in the 1960's which has backfired on them. In other countries, the conservatives gave into the radical social forces of the day. However, in the U.S., the Republicans led the counterattack. It was these events that pushed my catholic irish relatives(and many other white catholics and evangelicals) into the Republican camp. Obama's only chance at a 2nd term will be for him to both turn his back on tax increases and surrender on the culture war front. However, he won't do that so here's to another Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: Kent | 2008-10-05 11:35:20 PM
Why no mention of the Palins' anti-American political connections? Sarah's worked with the Alaska Independence Party for many years, with her husband as a registered member and herself as an "operative" posing as a Republican to infiltrate government. I'm not making this stuff up; you can listen to their Vice Chairman spell it out on video:
"Our current governor, we mentioned at the last conference, the one we were hoping would get elected, Sarah Palin, did get elected... to get along and go along — she eventually joined the Republican Party"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NK2sFJebGc
And here's a video of her participation in their conventions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI
This party's anti-American founder said things like "The fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American government".
Palin's response? "Keep up the good work!"
Can we really afford to have someone with these hateful ties in the second most powerful position in the country?
Posted by: Former Republican | 2008-10-06 10:07:59 AM
WOW!!! how much hatred and overt racism!
1. Obama has NO significant relationship with Ayers. He sat on a board with him, the board of a foundation chaired by a major McCain supporter.
2. Palin has direct and persistent ties with the Alaska Independence Party, a white supremacist segregationist organization with direct links with the KKK.
Who's palling around with terrorists? Guess.
Posted by: DR | 2008-10-12 6:07:16 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.