Preservetherepublic’s Weblog

Keeping Capitalism off the Endangered Species List

Obama finds Ayers’ book, “Searing and Timely”

with 22 comments

Obama's Blurb for Bill Ayers

Obama

It is coming more and more apparent that Obama’s relationship to Bill Ayers was closer than he has admitted. This appeared in the Chicago Tribune  on December 21, 1997 to promote Bill Ayers’ book A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvinile Court.  Obama wasn’t exactly denouncing Ayers’ terrorist actions here was he? For all of you Obama worshippers out there, I would like to know whether you still still believe Obama’s first lie about Ayers being just a guy in his neigborhood or do you believe his second lie about believing that Ayers had been rehabilitated? If you still believe the first lie, then you haven’t listened to your Messiah’s changing story that closely. If you believe the second then he has fooled you twice, shame on you.

Advertisements

Written by preservetherepublic

October 21, 2008 at 7:25 pm

22 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It was not book about Ayers’ terrorist actions. If you reviewed a book by G Gordon Liddy, for example, would you review the work based on the value of it’s content or would you “take the time to denounce Liddy’s terrorist tendencies and criminal actions”?

    It boggles my mind that McCain’s associations with people like Liddy and Oliver North (convicted of making illegal arms deals with Iran – a state sponsor of terror which just a few years earlier had taken American hostages and held them for over a year) and his tenure on the board of the World Anti Communist League are not the slightest bit of concern but Obama must answer for every shady character he ever crossed paths with, no matter how much his own stated positions stand in stark contrast to those people.

    If McCain loses this election, it will be proof that the Republican campaign strategy of demonizing the opponent rather than standing on the party platform has finally run it’s course. Good riddance to Rovian politics.

    joe

    October 21, 2008 at 7:35 pm

  2. The question that we need to ask is not what Obama thinks of Ayers, but what does Ayers see in Obama? What does the Hamas see in Obama? What does the Communist Party USA see in Obama? What does Fidel Castro see in Obama? What does Jeremiah Wright see in Obama? Why does Faraquan think Obama is the Messiah? What does Tony Rezko like Obama? Communists know a fellow communist when they see one. Radicals know a fellow radical when they see one.

    preservetherepublic

    October 21, 2008 at 10:24 pm

  3. Sad. Do you not see how that same line of thinking is just as easily used against anyone? What does the KKK see in the political right? What did Sandanista death squad leaders see in Ronald Reagan? What does the bin Laden family see in George W Bush?

    What did G Gordon Liddy and Oliver North see in John McCain? I can tell you the answer to that – they saw a talented young politician with a great backstory who was rising up fast on their side of the aisle. It’s clear to me that while McCain was not afraid to associate with these extremists, they did not influence and indoctrinate him to their agendas. How do I know? Because I’ve spent the past year listening closely to and looking over the record of John Mcain. And there’s nothing in his speeches and legislative work tpo suggest that he supports such extremism. JUST LIKE BARACK OBBAMA.

    joe

    October 21, 2008 at 10:37 pm

  4. Oliver North is an American hero by the way, so he knows another American hero when he sees one. The KKK is not a threat to national security, Hamas is. G Gordon Liddy is hardly a domestic terrorist.

    The bottom line is this. Obama’s policies are Marxist. His own words show that he is a radical. You need to look back over Obama’s record! Oh, I forgot he doesn’t have one! He voted present in the state senate and has been campaigning the whole time in the U.S. Senate. Obama is going to steal from me, my business, and my family and give my hard earned money to people who didn’t earn it. Obama’s own history and comments do show that he is far to the left. They also show that he is a Marxist. His own books show that he is a Marxist. What was the quote about him choosing his friends wisely, hanging out with the MARXIST professors, etc?

    preservetherepublic

    October 21, 2008 at 11:29 pm

  5. Hamas is not a threat to American national security. Tell the Secret Service guarding President Obama that the KKK is not a threat to national security.

    Oliver North is only a national hero if you name is preceded by the title, “Ayatollah”. Amazing what some people are willing to rationalize away.

    Which of Obama’s policies are Marxist?

    Which of his words of show that he is radical?

    You write, “Obama is going to steal from me, my business, and my family and give my hard earned money to people who didn’t earn it.”

    This is silly. It’s terrific if you really do make the quarter-million per year required for you to pay more income taxes under his policy. Wealth redistribution is something that has happened to varying degrees in the US since the 19th century. And Obama’s proposals break no new ground in that regard. The upper tax brackets will still pay less than they did under Clinton. Clearly Clinton-era tax policy did not prevent the 1990s from being a period of very strong economic growth.

    joe

    October 22, 2008 at 1:37 am

  6. Obama in his own words :

    ” To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”

    “When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints” – This really echos “The Communist Manifesto”.

    Out of his own mouth a few weaks ago he talked about “spreading the wealth.”

    What Clinton did not do was cut a check to people not paying taxes on such a large scale as Obama wants to. He will have to raise taxes much more than he says to fund everything that he wants to do. However. Clinton helped create the housing crisis that we have now forcing banks to lend to people who couldn’t pay their mortgages.

    Tell me what people are going to do when the corporation they work for moves overseas where taxes are more reasonable? What are they going to do when the small business they work for lays them off? What are people going to do when companies pass the tax hike to them by raising prices?

    Also, I love how Obama says “a quarter of a million” instead of $250,000. $250,000 is not rich,

    preservetherepublic

    October 22, 2008 at 2:02 am

  7. Those words are from a book in which Obama was describing a phase he went through for a couple of years while he was in college. He wrote that about himself as an example of hiow his life was going in the wrong direction during those years, before he focused his energies, changed his perspectives and accepted Christ.

    “What Clinton did not do was cut a check to people not paying taxes on such a large scale as Obama wants to.”

    This is a farce. It’s shocking to see all of these supposed conservatives suddenly declare that taxes other than federal income tax don’t count!

    Obama seeks to offset tax hikes to corporations with incentives for them to keep jobs in the states. We’ll see how it goes. Under the Bush tax plan, more jobs were shipped overseas than ever in history.

    And of course “rich” is subjective. Ask the average career civil servant raising a family on $40k at 45 years old if he’d feel rich if he was making $250k. And really if pressed I’d have to say that singling out the top 5% income earners as “rich” isn’t a stretch.

    joe

    October 22, 2008 at 3:09 am

  8. 250k may be “rich” in one area but not another. It doesn’t matter though. The point is that life if what you make of it. I was at the poverty level a few years back and I will pass Obama’s definition of rich next year. I worked hard to get where I am and don’t feel that anyone else is entitled to my income. If someone chooses the career path of a civil servant then that is their choice. They know the payscale before they take the job. If they want more money then they need to do somethine else or at least do something on the side. The problem is that our nation has moved into the Information Age and most of our citizens failed to learn the new skills that are in demand now. They only have Industrial Age skills. I was one of them once. I worked in construction as a tile setter, then went back to school, became a teacher, then started a business.

    People need to learn to take education more seriously. Most people are where they are at because they don’t want to take advantage of the opportunities around them. However, people like myself are getting punished because we dared to pick up a book and learn a new skill or two. Why should more money be taken out of my check and given to the people I use to set tile with who decided smoking pot was a higher priority than doing something with their lives.

    preservetherepublic

    October 22, 2008 at 4:31 am

  9. Preservetherepublic

    Congratulations on the success of your business. I respect you opinion regarding taxes but understand that a flat tax rate would simply crush the lower and middle income earners. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the wealthy should carry a larger tax burden than the poor and middle class. And American income tax policy has worked this way since it’s inception in the 19th century.

    joe

    October 22, 2008 at 4:27 pm

  10. 39% is way too high. 36% is too high as it is. It is ridiculous for anyone to have to work until May just to pay the federal government, even if they make a million per year. That is slavery. How high do they need to get 50%? 60%? 75%? You complained that we were only counting federal taxes before so let’s keep in ming that in addition to that 39%, we have to pay other taxes as well. You are talking about almost half of our income. How fair is that? Our country started because the colonists revolted against taxes that were light compared to what we have now. It was actually the wealthier colonists that lead the revolt. If Obama was more charitable himself, I might be more convinced. However, he has given less than 1 percent of his income to charity. I have given much more, so who is he to ask me to give more? Joe Biden has given less than 2 percent to charity, so who is he to ask me to be patriotic by giving more? If paying taxes is patriotic then our Founding Fathers were just traitors to England. If Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,John Adams, and Ben Franklin were alive today they would be leading a revolt! Obama has a half brother in Kenya who is in poverty and hasn’t lifted a finger to help. Obama is a hypocrite. I don’t mind a progressive tax , but where is it going to stop?

    preservetherepublic

    October 22, 2008 at 5:37 pm

  11. “Our country started because the colonists revolted against taxes that were light compared to what we have now. It was actually the wealthier colonists that lead the revolt.”

    This is slightly inaccurate. The country was started because the colonies paid taxes despite having no representation in the English government.

    “Obama has a half brother in Kenya who is in poverty and hasn’t lifted a finger to help. Obama is a hypocrite.”

    That’s rather unfair. George Obama has lived secluded from his family for almost a decade. Even George’s mother, who Barack is not related to, had not been in contact with him for years. Without knowing about George and his life, you cannot condemn Obama for failing to help him out.

    I don’t mind a progressive tax , but where is it going to stop?

    Well I think a check of the record will show that the tax burden on Americans in high income brackets has not continually gone up over the past 40 years. Rather, it has fluxuated back and forth and I believe it will continue to do so.

    joe

    October 22, 2008 at 5:53 pm

  12. 1. We don’t have representation now!!! Do you call Barney Frank representation? He was representing his boyfriend at Fannie Mae maybe. However, the lack of representation only became a problem once the taxes were raised.

    2. Obama has the resources to seek his brother out and help him. He reached out to help that socialist Odinga run for president of Kenya on the “Change” platform didn’t he?

    3. It may have fluctuated back and forth but if has gone mainly forth! You don’t see anything wrong with taking half of what someone earns?

    Look Joe. I appreciate your comments, but I believe in our country is still the best on Earth. I believe that there are more opportunities here than anywhere else. Anyone here is free to reach their full potential. I believe that anyone has the right to make decisions about what they want to do, but they should be willing to accept the consequences of that decision. When you choose your career path, you accept the salary and the trends that change it. When you choose to sleep with someone, you accept the risk of having a child. It just seems to me that the left is all about not accepting the consequences for your actions.

    preservetherepublic

    October 22, 2008 at 9:08 pm

  13. 1. Having unsatisfactory representation is far different from having no representation.

    2. Really, we don’t know to what extent Obama kept in touch with most of his half-brothers and half-sisters. Do we even know how many he had? Or how many women Obama’s father had children with? And of course we don’t know anything about George. He apparently went astray for some reason. He could have been an addict or a criminal. He could have gotten mixed up a paramilitary or Islamist group. Without such knowledge, claiming he turned his back on George is only assuming the worst, which is quite unfair.

    The Odinga connection is a myth started and perpetuated on the rightist blogosphere and I believe Sean Hannity. Obama and Odinga are not related and Obama did not compaign for him. The evidence that Obama campaigned for Odinga is nothing more than a photo of the two of them appearing on a stage together. Obama gave a speech that day while touring Kenya and Odinga did sit up on stage as he gave it, but it was not a campaign event for Odinga. For a more complete debunking of the Obama/Odinga myth, see a discussion I took part in earlier this year at the following link:

    http://rotoguru1.com/cgi-bin/read.pl?board=pol&thread=3098&last=1213387245

    I post there under the moniker of Mattinglyinthehall. The discussion starts with post 425 and runs through post 494 or so. The photo I speak of appears in post 440. The photos in posts 488 and 489 were removed by the rights-holder but in post 490 I provided the search terms to find them which is hopefully still good.

    3. I don’t believe it has gone “mainly forth”. Obama’s proposals won’t establish the tax burden on the rich that we had back in the 1970s.

    I take no issue with anything you wrote in your last paragraph, except for the last sentence, at least as a stand-alone statement within the context of the greater left/right economic debate. Understand that the ideals of both sides of the aisle are exploited.

    Consider: the promise of across-the-board tax cuts is that they are supposed to trickle down to the lower and middle classes. But you fully know that the reality of the Bush tax cuts is that during the economic boom from 2002-2007, corporate wages soared wildly out of control while the middle class actually regressed over the those 5 years.

    Rather tough to swallow as we now watch many of these execs of failed companies land softly on massive golden parachutes and AIG accept the taxpayer bailout and still treat their execs to posh getaways, don’t you think?

    For this and other reasons, many on the left believe the motive of the right’s economic policies are to maintain and expand on the wealth of the rich at the expense of everyone else, rather than the wont to contribute to a thriving economy that benefits all.

    I don’t agree with that any more than I do with your last sentence. But I think both arguments have merit as factors that should be safeguarded against.

    Regarding economics you and I probably don’t disagree more than we agree.

    joe

    October 22, 2008 at 11:28 pm

  14. The CEOs and businessmen who profit at the expense of everyone else are far and few between compared to the CEOs and businessmen who got their honestly and through smart work, not necessarily hard work. The former get the most publicity while the latter are overlooked.

    Success is all about mindset. Most people work for money. The rich know that working for money is insane. Instead, the learn how to make money work for them. You don’t have to have a lot of money to put that principle to work. (I am no fan of George Bush either by the way. He is a good reason that I am beginning to lean more Libertarian than Republican now). Remember the stimulus checks that Bush gave out. They didn’t work did they? Neither will Obama’s tax hike to the rich nor his tax cuts on the poor. Why? People don’t know how to put their money to work for them. You know most lottery winners end up in more debt than ever. Why? They don’t know what to do with a million dollars any more than they know what to do with $10. What do most people do with a stimulus check or a tax refund check? They spend it on a new car, big screen t.v., etc. They think they are entitled to these thing because they have worked hard. They may as well light fire to their check. They see the money as desposible income when their financial situation doesn’t merit that. The rich on the other hand only do this with money that is actually disposible income. Money is only disposible when you won’t miss it. The rich take most of their money and put it to work by starting businesses or investing in other businesses. Maybe they put it in real estate. The money works for them.

    The problem is financial education. I bet if you took someone like Donald Trump and stripped him of everything and redistribute all his wealth to the average American with in 5 years, Trump would be a millionaire again while the other person would be broke. Trump knows how to create wealth. We need to teach people how to fish instead of giving them fish.

    I hope you don’t take me as looking down on people. I am not. I use to be like that myself. I read a book called “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” by Robert Kiyosaki. I adopted the outlook from the book and it changed my life. The new mindset worked. Kiyosaki calls the 8 to 5 life of working a job “The Rat Race”. You get up, work, go home, sleep and then repeat, just like a rat on a wheel. You don’t get anywhere. Most people, just like I use to, accept that as their role in life. They don’t realize that they can escape regardless of their situation. I escaped and don’t consider myself to be a finanial genius by any means. I was a financial idiot actually. I feel that if I can do it, a monkey can.

    Anyway, I just grow tired of successful people being villianized by the media and Democrats. I use to buy in to that once myself. I hate to say that I voted for Clinton in his first term before I knew better. Most “rich” people I know are actually eager to share their expertise with others. They are anything but evil. Rich people generally want others to be rich too. Most rich people in our country are very giving.

    preservetherepublic

    October 23, 2008 at 4:07 am

  15. Rather than look at the issue from a anecdotal or case by case basis, I think it most instructive to consider the trend in executive and CEO pay compared with average production worker salary.

    In 1980, executive compensation was in the neighborhood of 30X average wages in the US. By 1993, it doubled to 60X. 10 yers later, it doubled again. When you discuss CEO earnings, the trend is the same but the ratio range changes to 75 to 500 times average worker pay.

    Source:
    http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8513949

    There is no way that this trend is conducive to a healthy economy. All that extra compensation redirected to the personal fortunes of the small executive class is money that doesn’t go into a company’s manufacturing apparatus, doesn’t go into office efficiency, doesn’t go into worker salary and benefits which would be used to attract and keep better skilled and/or harder working employees, doesn’t go into expanding production, output, reach or services and doesn’t go into growing the company’s workforce.

    That has nothing to do with corruption or a minority of “bad” CEOs.

    “The rich know that working for money is insane. Instead, the learn how to make money work for them.”

    I do respect your opinions on economics here, but this is rather silly. I’ve not read “Rich Man, Poor Man” but I’ve discussed some of the basic tenets with people who have and I think I have a fair idea on the basics. I like my career. Despite the fact that I’m not rich and that it was difficult for me to work myself up from an entry-level position with a very low salary to where I am now and that I still often must work very hard, I don’t think I’m insane at all. My work is rewarding and I take pride in the role I play in a company and an industry which I believe provides an important service to the public.

    I understand that perhaps most middle and low income workers might not share in my content for their own employment situations, but I’m very surprised to see someone who has ‘called himself a Republican for as long as he can rememebr’ stating that “working for money is insane”. I believe that a good deal of the succes of the Republican Party has very much to do with tapping into the pride of the everyday worker and reminding them that they are the backbone of our economy.

    I hope you don’t take me the wrong way. I think your success is terrific and if the “Rich Man Poor Man” mindset enabled you to achieve that success without hard work, all the more power to you. But that mindset seems to omit the important fact that economy depends on the production of the lower income workers. If everyone bought into the notion that working for their money is insane, if everyone took the advice that they don’t have to accept work as their role in life, then the principles which might enable Donald Trump and others like him to hypothetically regain their wealth after financial ruin wouldn’t exist in the first place.

    joe

    October 23, 2008 at 4:01 pm

  16. Then you aren’t working for the money yourself. You like your career. There isn’t anything wrong with that. However, you can keep your career and still not work for money. My point is that people need to recognize that there are two types of income. There is active income which is the money that you get from your job. There is also passive income, which is income that comes from your money working for you through investments (stock dividends, businesses, etc.) My advice to anyone would be to look for ways to build passive income with the goal of having your passive income substantially be more than your expenses. That way you can work on you career as long as you want, but leave on your own terms instead of a set number of years (usually 30). I use to teach. I loved to teach. I still do. However, 30 years seemed like a sentence for me. I had the option after 3 years to walk away because of the amount of passive income that I was able to create. It was a tough choice at first, because I loved the job. However, I have a daughter who was having a lot of firsts that I was missing at work. Therefore, I chose to walk away. I still do volunteer work.

    Now I absolutely agrtee that the working class is the backbone of the country. However, the entrepreneur is the lifeblood. You can’t hurt the CEO and the entrepreneur without destroying the middle class. If you take away the life blood you are left with a dry skeleton. The opposite is also true and the wise entrepreneur and business owner treats their employees accordingly. Anyone who doesn’t is doomed because their employees won’t be productive.

    Tax cuts and tax hikes affect the higher income brackets the most. They need the tax cuts the most because they create the jobs and become more productive. I said one thing wrong before. Corporations don’t pay 36% in taxes, they pay 0% in taxes. They pass the tax burden to the consumer by raising prices. We pay their taxes. This hurts the middle class more than the rich. If you want to kill the middle class, then raise taxes on the rich. I am all for giving a tax break to the “working” middle class too. I am against a tax hike on any class and I am definitelt against giving a check to the “non working” lower class who aren’t paying taxes. I would actually do away with welfare for any ablebodied person. Huckabee (who was my first choice) cut welfare in Arkansas and saw the unemployment rate plummet. Why? People had to go look for a job! YOu have to admit that the current welfare system is being abused. Why extend it under the guise of a tax break?

    preservetherepublic

    October 23, 2008 at 11:51 pm

  17. Corporations don’t pay 36% in taxes, they pay 0% in taxes. They pass the tax burden to the consumer by raising prices. We pay their taxes. This hurts the middle class more than the rich.

    The problem is that the middle and lower classes have realized that the opposite is not true. While businesses do pass their tax increases onto the working class, they do not pass the benefits of increased profits onto the working class. Instead, that money goes straight into the pockets of the executives.

    We could go back and forth all day on this. I acknowledge merit to the right’s economic principles. I even agree that at times, the country is better off with their ideals. I think we’d all be better of if each side was not so rigid in their economic ideals. The notions that the right’s ideology is based primarily on greed and that the left’s priorities are skating personal responsibility are both wrong. Sure, these accusations fit those who choose t exploit the system on either side, but it’s not where the debate should be.

    joe

    October 24, 2008 at 5:32 pm

  18. Every complaint I here from the left comes form the logic that it is unfair for someone like an executive to make so much more money than others.

    So do you believe “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”? How does someone become an executive? Their abilities.

    Again I reiterate that Obama and Biden haven’t given anything to charity and should not be in a position to demand that others. I have actually given a higher percentage to charity in the last 8 years than Obama and Biden combined. From 2000 – 2004 Obama gave less than 1 percent. In 2005 – 4.7% and in 2006 – 6.1%. He increased it a little once he decide to run for President. Joe Biden has never given over $995 to charity in any given year of his life. This doesn’t scream leadership.

    What is Obama’s record on job creation? Illinois ranks 45th in job creation.

    preservetherepublic

    October 24, 2008 at 6:47 pm

  19. One legislator can’t have much impact in that regard. That factor is more telling of the executive or the state legislative body as a whole. And given IL’s rustbelt proximity, I’d imagine the state’s overall record was an employment downturn.

    Though probably the centerpiece of Obama’s IL legislative record was a welfare reform initiative, which he speareaded.

    joe

    October 24, 2008 at 8:20 pm

  20. The problem is that the Governor and most of their representation is from the Democratic Party.

    preservetherepublic

    October 24, 2008 at 8:32 pm

  21. So do you believe “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”?

    Of course not. Like Obama, I am a capitalist. We’ve already been through this.

    How does someone become an executive? Their abilities.

    Now that’s not necessarily true at all. I work in a corporate structure, as my company is owned by a major media conglomerate. It’s much more than a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of the executives are people who happen to have entered the field with very high-level connections. In fact, I’ve been in this business for 10 years and I don’t know of anyone with such high-level connections who wants to break into the executive class and can’t. Please don’t think I’m bitter about that, in fact I think the point is largely moot anyway. But I’m just responding to what you said with what I know.

    Regarding your charity argument, frankly I don’t see and significant connection. I guess you can call him a hypocrite if you insist but the point of the matter is that the USA has had a progressive income tax policy for the majority of it’s existance. The debate is exactly where the lines should be drawn and the differences are but a few percentage points.

    Regarding job creation in IL, the greatest problem is that IL is a state with much of it’s traditional economy tied to manufacturing. I don’t have a job creation table in front of me but I’d bet that other rust belt states such as Ohio and Michighan are also low on the list.

    I also believe Alask is very low on the list, if I’m right about that, then based on your reasoning, this is due specifically to the party of the leadership there (mostly Republican) and not (as I contend) many numerous factors, some of them entirely external.

    Anyway, I think it might be time to wrap up this discussion. I’ve found you most hospitable as a host and appreciate your continued and civil discussion with me. I’ll be sure to check back from time to time and I invite you to do the same at my site (hopefully you don’t mind my linking it here):

    http://youraveragejoe.wordpress.com/

    Cheers
    Joe

    joe

    October 24, 2008 at 9:07 pm

  22. Alaska is one of the few states with an expanding economy as is Texas and everything north of Texas.

    Also, what you call having connections is an ability that other people call networking. It is very hard to do and honestly I stink at it myself.

    Obama is a socialist as is 80% of the Democratic Party and 60% of the Republican Party. McCain is even more of a socialist than I am. He signed the stupid bailout too. I become more of a Libertarian every day. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being a capitalist and 10 a socialist, I give Obama a 8 and McCain a 5. I am a 2.

    Anyhow, I have enjoyed our discussion and am glad that we both kept it civil. I will make a bet with you. If 4 years from now, the economy is booming under Obama and the unemployment rate drops I will go to your blog and say I was wrong, but you must come here if the economy doesn’t improve and the unemployment rate rise.

    preservetherepublic

    October 25, 2008 at 12:30 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: