Well you know what they say, “The worst …”

Goon,

“Shady”? Only on a moral scale that rates gang rape as a mild social aberration.

Wing Chun Geologist: AYou ghave us a very reasonable, balanced view of this matter. I also thank you for your positive contribution to this debate.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It DOES NOT say what you are asserting that it does say at all, not one at all!

With all due respect: “The Constitution, and the laws of the United States (federal laws). . . and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be (together) the Supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby. 1st: The Constitution has primacy over all; 2nd: and (or next in importance) the (federal) laws of the United States; and 3rd: last in importance, any current or future international treaties, shall be the supreme law of the land. Over the Constitution? No! It is only supreme over the judges in individual states, in that they cannot make judgments against such federal laws or federally enacted international treaties. It may appear a difference without any significance, but the inclusion of the words judges and states belie that idea. It is supremacy over states and their judges, not the Constitution itself, nor does it provide for the Constitution to be submitted to International Treaties to interpret the Constitution. There is not one word about the federal laws or international treaties having supremacy over the Constitution or it’s being used to interpret the Constitution.

Lastly, the paragraph/decision you altered by using bold type face is prima facie evidence of your having appeared to be advancing that position, as was your misunderstanding of the quotation from the Constitution above. You keep using this case and this quotation to support, whether you agree with it or not, that International Treaties are by themselves the law of the land, versus being so only after the Constitution and federal laws.

Yes, you will now say you agree it has no supremacy over the Constitution nor may it be used by SCOTUS to help interpret the Constitution; But, I would submit that your faulty reliance upon the decision in question and the quotation above, along with your placing bold type face only over the words treaties or international treaties and supreme law of the land, make it appear or give the clear impression you believe that to be an understood fact, at the very least.

Let us say you only wanted to convey the idea that the decision in question and the constitution support that idea; that is still wrong, as neither of these items say anything like that; I’ll have to be the one that is generous and consider that your less than clear communications caused an unfortunate misunderstanding on my part. Okay? While in my heart I remain convinced you did support that idea, at least you should admit your reading of this decision and the quotation from the Constitution DO NOT support International Law as being the supreme law of the land, except to the degree it is constitutionally permissable.

If McCain associated with David Duke, and went to his home, it would be more than fair to bring that up. And you can bet you @$$ that it would be the number one media story from now until the 1st Tuesday in November.

You’re goddam right. And if that had happened, you know that the people in here shrugging off Obama’s terrorist problem would suddenly be less than charitable about it.

Lestat,

I’m convinced that Barack H. Obama is an honest product of the Chicago political machine.

I learned many years ago that apologies, like compliments, courtesies, Christmas gifts, and blow jobs just aren’t all that meaningful if you have to ask for them.

I would have to disagree with the last one.

Ken,

Yikes! I was more on target than I thought, when I wrote:

It also says something about Chicago public life that an admitted and un-reformed domestic terrorist is such an omnipresent fixture of it, does it not? Then again, Chicago remains a one party town, doesn’t it?

Makes one wonder which party is the one party of Chi-town, don’t it?

sheila you ignorant twat:

Ayers in his own words: “Guilty as sin, free as a bird.”

No Bat I appreciate the comments. Especially where you mention my writings . . . I am glad that you could tell without even asking that I would be opposed to something as silly as having international law take precedence over our Constitution.

I am still resentful over having to defend myself against insinuations that I would ever consider such a thing.

Yes, Neiman is very hypocritical. I don’t care if he insults me (though he insulted my father as well. I actually kinda care about that) but I was shocked and taken aback that he insulted you!

Then he comes in here and claims he is a mighty force of moderation.

Just . . . unbelievable.

1st: The Constitution has primacy over all; 2nd: and (or next in importance) the (federal) laws of the United States; and 3rd: last in importance, any current or future international treaties, shall be the supreme law of the land. Over the Constitution? No!

That is not a plain reading of the word “supreme”. If you write a list and say they are all supreme, it would mean they are all equal.

Theoretically a duly executed and ratified treaty should be equal to the Constitution in legal authority for which the treaty was created.

However, if there was a conflict I would expect the Supreme Court to side with the Constitution, if only for political not legal reasons.

Ken’s use of the Paquete Habana was probably a poor choice for this issue. It was an admiralty case. The question of how to treat the capture of crafts on the high seas obviously has more international law issues that the average case.

Good God Lestat I wish I had said all that. It crystallizes it all quite well.

Well done.

I have to go make a living! You guys can blather on, but I think we have beat this to death and established that we are in opposite camps regarding everything and need to be ready to fight each other on others threads for any cause. One of you will never admit you lied to protect the other one, the other person will never admit that at least their less than perfect communication skills may have helped create this little war, and so we are just beating our mental gums without any positive purpose and without any hope of any common understanding.

I don’t know why I am bothering – I get nothing but insults in return every time I try – but I am going to explain this yet again to you Neiman.

You are extremely confused about what the Supremacy Clause means. First of all, it does not assert, contrary to what you mistakenly believe, that ‘international law’ is supreme over the Constitution. It does not even refer to ‘international law’, it refers to treaties, and they are not the same thing. Only treaties ratified by the Senate become the law of the land. They do not, in any way, shape or form, take precedence over the Constitution.

And when these treaties do conflict with constitutional privileges, SCOTUS has held in cases such as Reid v. Covert that the Constitution controls.

But other than that, treaties, duly ratified and approved by the Senate, do become the supreme law of the land equal with congressional legislation, which also takes precedence over state laws. That is the doctrine called preemption.

in that the Constitution and federal laws and international treaties were only supreme over state courts and judges, not the Constitution.

For the LAST FUCKING TIME Neiman, I beg you, please, try to understand that neither I, nor Lestat, nor Bat One nor anyone but you, ever fucking argued that international law takes precedence over the Constitution, or argued that the Supremacy Clause states that.

jezreel,

What has Barrack H. Obama himself (not one of his campaign staff) had to say about Ayers in particular, and the Weathermen, in general, publicly and on the record?

Neiman,

Politics is all about appearances. A single joint appearance would be happenstance. The established pattern far less so. And Barrack H. Obama can still put this issue to bed by personally and unequivocally condemning William Ayres, the Weathermen, and their campaign of domestic terrorism.

I doubt he will do so, since in so doing he would alienate a substantial element of his base of support and admit error.

Jack

It

Is the necessary and sufficient answer to crankery.

Keep Digging, I heard that Barak’s kindergarten teacher once kissed Huey Newton of the Black Panthers.

By the way batman, I had even much earlier offered him a chance to end the matter, when I said it was possible I had misunderstood his postion on an earlier thread and here on this subject; and should he state clearly he did not believe international law was the supreme law of the land, I would apologize for misreading his words and intentions and end the debate. You didn’t bother to read that one did you? Or a couple of other times when I made a similar offer? No! You chose for some reason of unreasoning bias to decide he was right and I was wrong absent any documented evidence whatsoever, it was just a blind defense of him and an unreasoning, insane attack upon me.

I chose to defend the Constitution over any other laws and I was willing to debate it ad naseum; but no matter what olive branches I offered him or how hard I diagrammed sentences and provided other evidence, he would deny making that claim and then reassert that claim over and over again.

Since you wanted to play referee or his lawyer, in pursuit of justice you should have carefully read every post first or butted out!

Nieman, keep in mind I did NOT say Obama, or anyone else should be investigated by anyone in government for this association. I would personally find that abhorrent.

I have, however, found some of Lestat’s assertions in the past to be a stretch and was just asking for his clarification.

Many on blogs tend to make the constitution into what they believe or wish it to be, not always what it is. That may be the case here.
DKK

David Duke is a Conservative Republican.

He may be a registered Republican, because he is free to do that, but he is not a member of the Republican Party in any sense, and he is certainly not a conservative. In his authoritarian approach, he is more like a Dixiecrat.

*shrug*

Nice comeback, rod.

Lestat, please cite specifically what provision of the constitution prevents a lawful investigation of a person’s meetings with others by congress or any government body.
DKK

It does not even refer to ‘international law’, it refers to treaties, and they are not the same thing. Only treaties ratified by the Senate become the law of the land. They do not, in any way, shape or form, take precedence over the Constitution.

And when these treaties do conflict with constitutional privileges, SCOTUS has held in cases such as Reid v. Covert that the Constitution controls.

That is exactly what I have been saying all along! I have said from the very beginning exactly what was stated above!

I will not go back over every instance where YOU, intentionally or not, in my opinion, clearly asserted your belief that International Law and/or Treaties were the Supreme Law of the Land; but this one fact tells the tale best: the words YOU, by an act of YOUR own will, not contained in the original text, chose to change into bold type face and thus make the decision ‘appear’ to say exactly that and only that, and you did not say you were offering it as an example only of what others said concerning the issue, but rather you allowed the words you changed into bold type face to stand alone and thus make it ‘appear’ you were once again, in my opinion, advancing that errant position. As I said, I could have accepted your later explanation to stop the conflict, but it is important to note that the decision itself did not say at all what the words in bold type face appeared to make it say that, International Law was the supreme law of the land; but only that the three things mentioned had superior weight over local courts and judges. So, you at minimum ‘appeared’ to be trying to make it seem with the words in bold that this decision did assert international law/treaties supremacy. It did not!

For the LAST FUCKING TIME Neiman,

Your constant need to use vulgar, inane and meaningless terminology to express your frustration seems to testify to your limited vocabulary, your inability to communicate clearly, which might be at the root of this matter. You simply cannot communicate very well!

Being charitable, a word perhaps foreign to you, which means giving the devil his due, in my opinion, at the very least you were sufficiently unclear in your comunications and unwilling early on to clarify any misunderstandings and thus for motives beyond my understanding, you allowed this matter to rage out of control, and cause otherwise cordial relations to be permanently harmed.

I have absolutely no problem with Lestat, you appear to be just trying to recruit allies to your cause! I told him early on I was not attacking him personally or his beliefs on the matter, only debating the matter vigorously. Further, in private on another matter entirely, via email, he gave me wise counsel which I have accepted.

Lastly, despite my many attempts, even in my last post, to moderate this matter/conflict and find some common ground to end the disagreement in a cordial manner, I find it sad that you simply cannot avoid vulgar langauge and demeaning comments in order to keep the matter stirred up, that it appears, you might think yourself the victor! Quite unfortunate that you seem to lack an ability to concede any error on your part.

Neiman, I don’t know how much more insulting you can get when you write this:

They are willfully ignorant of the facts because their emotions are caught up in this charismatic, nice looking black man/candidate and they need to be encouraged to face the facts, as I encouraged andydakota in the hopes, like a slap in the face, it will wake them up from this dangerous daydream.

It is insulting. Oh and gee thanks for letting my answers ‘set for a while’. My answers won’t change the longer they set, Neiman.

I’m sure you think so, kid.

How much credibility do you have when you can’t even spell either of the “domestic terrorist’s” names correctly? If you don’t even have the basics down why should anyone give the time of day to anything else you have to say?

What’s wrong with a fellowship of bomb-throwers having an intellectual meeting of the minds? Nothing more to see here.

Lestat:

Calling him Hussien or Osama is what passes for clever in the right-wing echo chamber.

It is a red herring to say that anyone is trying to paint Obama as a terrorist. It is fair game, however, to question his judgment and question if he harbors any sympathies towards domestic terrorism before anyone gives him the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Obama………the baby slaughtering advocate………communist and liar.

LifeTrek wrote:

The Obama’ers have created a strawman in this debate. It isn’t an implication of illegality or support for a terrorist, it is however a direct reflection of orthodoxy and questionable judgment outside the mainstream.

Yep.

Both are complete nobodies who have delusions of self grandeur. Both are worthless leftist schmucks who should be stricken from the public record. And both are less dangerous and controversial than say: Tookie Williams or Al Sharpton.

David Duke is a Conservative Republican.

Rodney: “Neiman, Politics is all about appearances.”

I agree that the appearance of evil can be as real and destructive as actual involvement. My only point was if this was a casual appearance or two, I think to imply sympathy with the causes of these other people is inaccurate.

Robert108:

“It’s called guilt by association.” “Not really. It’s important to know who a potential President has for friends, isn’t it?”[/quote]

Fairness is required and I think what Rob was talking about was a pattern of behavior that ‘might’ have darker implications, without assuming absolute guilt. The question for me is, were these friends or causual happenstance acquaintances in a city wherein these associations will occur frequently without it meaning anything?

On the other hand, I do agree it is an easy matter to deal with, have Obama simply deny any agreement with the radical beliefs of these people and assure the voters these people would not have occasion to be in the same place as him in the future.

Calling him Hussien or Osama is what passes for clever in the right-wing echo chamber.

I despise every thing about the person responding to this matter, but Ted Kenndy did first make that variation on Obama’s name popular and I doubt it has much, if any mean spirited motives with its use, it’s just humor! I have used it often like I call Hillary the Hildabeast, pure humor, a play on their names for fun.

The Lie?
You backed up your pal’s lie, and then I showed you the exact paragraph he had used from the court decision, wherein he made key text in bold type face to highlight the words “International Law . . . and is the Supreme Law of the Land.” Thus, that is what I had claimed he had said all along, then he made that claim again in bold type that International Law was supreme over our Constitution and you said he did not say what he clearly said in bold type, he did so in a deliberately dishonest way I might add.

So, you said he did not claim International Law was supreme over the Constitution and was the supreme law of the land, when in the words he changed to bold type face he clearly make that exact claim, my charge would hold up in any court of law. So, you had documentary evidence from within his own comments that he was even then promoting the idea that International Law was the supreme over our Constitution and land, yet despite the evidence in front of your face you lied for him, you said he didn’t say something the bold type faced evidence proved he was in fact asserting.

Had you bothered to go up to my diagramming of the paragraph in question, it was obvious that the decision therein did not assert International Law was supreme over the Constitutrion, but that the Constitution then Federal laws and then international treaties entered into by the federal government were supreme over state courts and judges only!

Over and over again he said he was not asserting International Law was supreme over the Constitution and like in the paragraph I showed you, by using bold type face in a dishgonest way he reasserted that very thing over and over again, but despite the clear, documented evidence you still lied for him.

Worse, when you intimated I was wrong or lying, you did not provide one quotation from him that denied his assertion of International treaty dominance as the supreme law of our land, nor did you point out why I was wrong to use the paragraph in question to defend my position and point out his error. You just shouted down from Heaven and said I was wrong and falsely called me strident, when stridency must be verbal, not writen; but it does not matter because I was never strident, only determined to defend the truth to the bitter end.

You had no right getting involved in the conversation at that late point, unless you had clear evidence to prove my error and prove he was in the right and provided that evidence. Until you butted in to defend the indefensible, I was content to keep dissecting the various laws over and over until I proved he was wrong about International Law being the supreme law of the land, even to him; but you chose to make false accusations against me of being strident and you deliberately, with malice lied about his position on the matter, in my opinion.

Good enough answer for you?

LifeTrek: Very educational, thank you! I’ll have to digest it more, but you made some very good points.

I think that the existence of a Democrat Congress kind of makes the point moot, since I cannot see them investigating him.

Nieman and Lestat, I am not sure you two are correct. To being you both missed the word lawful in my statement. The first amendment in no way shape or form prevents a lawful investigation of a persons meetings or associations.

You can’t prohibit peaceable assembly or make participation in a lawful meeting illegal in DeJonge v. Oregon, the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the conviction of an individual under a state criminal syndicalism law for participation in a Communist party political meeting. The Court writes that “peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime. The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed.”

However in a case deciding whether the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities’ inquiry into petitioner’s past or present membership in the Communist Party violated the First Amendment, Barenblatt v. United States, the Court states that, “where First Amendment rights are asserted to bar governmental interrogation, resolution of the issue always involves a balancing by the courts of the competing private and public interests at stake in the particular circumstances shown.” The Court concludes that the investigation is for a valid legislative purpose and that “investigatory power in this domain is not to be denied Congress solely because the field of education is involved.”

If they could investigate someone for HUAC would domestic terrorism be decided differently?

Now that doesn’t mean they will get any cooperation into their investigation, in NAACP v. Alabama, the Court states that the demand by Alabama officials for the NAACP to provide them a membership list violates members’ associational rights.

But the investigation itself wasn’t unconstitutional.
DKK

This is a ridiculous smear in an attempt to call Obama a terrorist.

He gets asked to appear on a panel and accepts. This does not show that he sympathises with Ayers views.

He goes to a farewell dinner for a professor at his alma mata which Ayers also attends. This does not show that he sympathises with Ayers views.

They are both public figures in Chicago. Their paths are going to cross. There is no indication that Obam supports his views at all.

This is underhanded and dirty.

Lestat: Thanks for again illustrating leftie double standards, but let me ask you: How many terrorists has Barack Hussein Obama killed? George Bush has already proven that he will not only stand up to Islamic terrorism, he will defeat it. BHO, on the other hand, has not only pledged to cut and run from Iraq, if elected, but will also sit down with the terrorists as if they are real human beings. I would say that his associations are critical in judging how he will rule as a leftie President, especially since he wants so much power over our private lives, on an everyday basis, with his monstrous govt “programs”.

andydakota: Ignore McCracken’s personal remarks! However, Rob has presnted many threads here at SA which raise serious questions about Obama’s background, his proposed programs and his competence to be POTUS. He has not engaged in personal attacks and has always tried to examine Obama’s candidacy in an intelligent, objective manner. Even if you are a liberal, it should be of serious interest to read about these matters to make sure before you cast your vote in this year’s election you can answer all doubts about Obama confidently. You wouldn’t want to vote from a position of ignorance would you?

I’m having flashbacks…this Bill Ayer’s guy keeps popping up:

http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/what_is_free_speech/

In 2004, Dickinson State University invited a self-proclaimed communist and admitted bomber of the anti-war Vietnam era to campus on the public dime.

By this logic, we can conclude the following: the Bush family has ties with the Bin Laden family and other Saudi Arabians, therefore the Bush family is in partnership with Osama Bin Laden and is therefore behind 9/11.

An ongoing pattern of association with domestic terrorists should be disqualifying for any rational actor. That it is not for you surprises none of us here in the least, comporting as it does with the opinions you have oft expressed here.

Rod is right it is unacceptable.

As an aside, it never ceases to amaze me how, so called, “intellectuals,” have to hold conferences on things like fostering coalitions between, theorists and activists (all intellectuals of course!)!

How does that work in Ayres mind? The theorist plans the bombing and the activist actually does the bombing? Where do downs syndrome suffers fit into that equation?

Sometimes it seems that if conservatives held the same type of conference using the same, “code words,” the left would call it a militia meeting. But being intellectuals, they know better, like the proper time to bomb a NCO dance!

The level of arrogance is really astounding and ironically goes unnoticed by these very intellectuals.
DKK

Neiman, you say we are to keep an open mind but yet you write this tripe:

They are willfully ignorant of the facts because their emotions are caught up in this charismatic, nice looking black man/candidate and they need to be encouraged to face the facts, as I encouraged andydakota in the hopes, like a slap in the face, it will wake them up from this dangerous daydream.

A dangerous daydream? Quite the contrary. I have looked at his positions and find that I agree with them. I am not some pie in the sky love sick teenager here. I’ve been around the block a time or two. Yet you and others here call the citizens of this country who are backing him cultish, messianic because he has millions of millions of supporters. If this were George Bush, or John McCain, you would be cheering right now.

Bush has caused this country to want profound change. Just look at the right track wrong track numbers. The train has left the station. The citizens of this country are choosing the change to Barack Hussein Obama.

As much as you try to smear with the weathermen nonsense and whatever else you will trump up, will not stick. Obama has more supporters than the republicans and McCain can muster and even when the swiftboating begins, we will be prepared.

I wish everyone to the Right of Lestat would take a deep breath and realize: (a) Rob had no ill motives, he raised a legitimate campaign issue about what he felt was a pattern of behavior involving Obama’s associations with people from a known terrorist type group. It was a legitimate point of debate. (b) Lesat is appealing for fairness, pointing out why if it was okay to make this association, there should be no complaints from the Right about raising the Bush and Saudi Arabia connections in the same manner. (c) This asociation by Obama may be innocent or have more sinister meanings, absent making accusations at this early stage, there is a need to keep our minds open as more information is forthcoming.

I am still glad Rob raised the issue, now if and when more information arises, I will have some better knowledge of the history of this matter.

Unless you can show that the actual individuals with whom you allege the Bush’s have had contact are admitted and un-reformed terrorists…

No prob. Here ya go.

I wish everyone to the Right of Lestat would take a deep breath and realize: (a) Rob had no ill motives,

I don’t think three quarters of the planet reads Say Anything!

andydakota: I apologize, I didn’t realize that you would assume talking about liberals generally, meant I was talking about you only. I should have mentioned you as the exception! Further, I am expressing my views from the Right in a good natured, civil manner that you might not feel under attack by everyone an dhave an opportunity to see the value in critiquing Obama’s candidacy.

As to the Messianic comments I’ve made about Obama, I believe his support is at a level of near god worship, which even some liberal media have noticed. But, we will clear that up right now and see if you really are the exception and are making an intelligent decision or are voting your emotions:

(1) What three legislative and/or diplomatic accomplishments of Senator Obama can you list that makes you think Obama is qualified to to be POTUS in your mind? Please be specific.

(2) What three other things can you point to in Obama’s history that objectively indicates he has the experience, credentials and public temperment to be POTUS?

(3) What three top public policy programs has Obama proposed that causes you to be able say you know exactly what he means when he says he represents ‘change?”

You backed up your pal’s lie, and then I showed you the exact paragraph he had used from the court decision, wherein he made key text in bold type face to highlight the words “International Law . . . and is the Supreme Law of the Land.” Thus, that is what I had claimed he had said all along, then he made that claim again in bold type that International Law was supreme over our Constitution and you said he did not say what he clearly said in bold type, he did so in a deliberately dishonest way I might add.

So, you said he did not claim International Law was supreme over the Constitution and was the supreme law of the land, when in the words he changed to bold type face he clearly make that exact claim, my charge would hold up in any court of law. So, you had documentary evidence from within his own comments that he was even then promoting the idea that International Law was the supreme over our Constitution and land, yet despite the evidence in front of your face you lied for him, you said he didn’t say something the bold type faced evidence proved he was in fact asserting.

Neiman,

Please forgive my orderly, rational thought here, but all you’ve demonstrated here is that you claimed that I am a liar because I disagreed with your wrong-headed interpretation of what Ken said, or was trying to say, and sided with him instead of you.

To me, to lie is to say something deliberately known to be false with the specific intention of misleading the other party. If that is even remotely close to a working definition, then you have failed utterly to establish anything other than the fact that I disagreed with you. You certainly haven’t justified your accusation that I am a liar.

As for Ken’s argument, I have no more interest in trying to make you see why your interpretation of what he wrote was wrong. He can defend himself, if he figures you are worth the effort. Apparently, he does not.

I don’t like to have my integrity questioned by anyone, at any time. Much less when there is nothing more to substantiate the attack than what you’ve poorly managed to put together here.

You and I may have disagreed on some minor point in the past. To be honest, I don’t recall one way or another. But I know that I have expressed nothing but respect for you, your beliefs, your service, and your sacrifice. And for that, and the effort last night to save you the embarrassment of making even more of a fool of yourself, you presume to call me a liar?

Despite the late hour, I am very much inclined to tell you exactly where you can put that “respect” you mentioned (yeah, right!). But you are quite likely as constipated at that end as you clearly are between the ears.

I didn’t lie. I didn’t attack you. Nor did I attack your family as you’ve charged me with doing. Your accusations bespeak your own dishonesty.

I repeat what I’ve said in the other two posts:

I have had associations with much worse people in my life than these two. And if I ever run for office, I’d consider anyone who brought the issue up to be an idiot. I would not go out of my way to condemn people I had casual contact with a decade or so ago. Most likely I wouldn’t even address it as it would be a non issue.

Absent more damning proof, I agree with Socialist, Jack, and Lestat for a change. So all of the noise about bankrupt leftists like:

Good point! Those Obama supporters who dismiss his associations with admitted domestic terrorists reveal as much about their own intemperate ideology and callous contempt for the US as they do Mr. Obama’s.

can be put to bed as I am certainly not a leftist, liberal, or democrat. Nor am I an Obama supporter. And I was one of the first ones here to say I thought this was much ado about nothing.

There is a lot to dislike about Obama, from his socialist ideas, to his naive worldview, and his unrealistic beliefs about what it would even take to impliment his own policies. We have more than enough reason to dislike him without making up more reasons.

This is no less unfair than the McCain adultery story.

Ayers even mentioned Obama in his 1998 book:

Not exactly “Mr Rogers’ Neighborhood”, was it?

It seems to me that if we can waste taxpayer money investigating baseball players, we can certainly investigate the Obama-Weathermen connection. If there’s nothing there, so much the better, and if there is….we have dodged a bullet, no?

Be careful here. You’re on the brink of sounding suspiciously like Neiman has recently.

Oh, remember Bat Shit, I left you alone since yesterday, after your blind and indefensible support of your bitch, I didn’t start this little game with you today pal! I was willing to forget about your lying nonsense yesterday. Unless, as I suspect you are all pissed and have your little girl lace panties all in a twist because I didn’t support you very early on under this thread; but, I did so civilly unlike you!

Lestat, please cite specifically what provision of the constitution prevents a lawful investigation of a person’s meetings with others by congress or any government body.
DKK

Unless there is evidence of a crime, which should be investigated by local or federal prosecutors first; to engage in Congressional investigations of Obama’s free associations just to satisfy the blood lust of the Right is to stifle, to wet blanket anyone desiring the right of Free Assembly and Speech and that violates the Constitution.

Or, would you suggest that it is okay to investigate political candidates engaging in free assembly and speech without evidence or reasonable suspecian of a crime?

Not to mention, the ‘facts’ in the McCain case are very much in dispute, unlike the facts of Obama’s association with known terrorists.

The question isn’t whether Obama is friends with these terrorists, the question is how close and sympathetic he is towards them.

As far as freedom of association goes, I don’t think it applies to terrorists.

If it isn’t illegal, I believe it applies to all associations. Though this association hasn’t been proven beyond casual acquaintenceship.

Obama is not entitled to be elected President of the United States without a background check.

I don’t remember the background check part of the Constitution. If the people elect him the only requirements for President are 35 years old and a natural citizen.

This whole story is designed just to smear him.

Be careful here. You’re on the brink of sounding suspiciously like Neiman has recently. It is NOT a rationally defensible position.

It is a Constitutionally defensible position, I don’t care how you define rational. If their ins’t a crime involved Congress has not business investigating any associations of any citiaen.

DR: The centerpiece of this argument is that Obama shares their core values.

he will still lie and defend his intimate Front Page bitch

Fuck you, you retarded twit.

Neiman, I am not here at your beck and call to answer your demands when you demand they be answered. Some of us have a life outside of blogging. You ought to try it.

1. created a state earned income tax credit for poor people in Illinois; increase funding for health care in Illinois; increased funding for education in Illinois.

2. He is of legal age as required by the US constitution. He has been elected by the people of Illinois to the United States Senate. He is well-educated, a Harvard Law Graduate.

3. health care for all who want it. Plan is available on his website. (look it up like I did.) Reform of NCLB (fully funding it as Bush said he would but didn’t) and getting the troops out of Iraq.

Now, I’m sure you’ll attack as usual but I’ve done my homework long before he won all these primaries. So take your righteous indignation and insulting comments about those that are supporting Obama and attack someone else.

Rodney Graves

I’m convinced that Barack H. Obama is an honest product of the Chicago political machine.

Oh that is so wrong on so many levels, but most probably ture!
DKK

Here’s a link to a picture of Barack Hussein Obama in Muslim garb:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wore-muslim-gear-during-kenya-trip

I forgot Obama is black. He is held to a different standard. But its ok for catholic priests to have their way with children of parishoners. what hypocrites.

Who in the hell is the target of this idiot’s rant?

Obama is the best thing I have seen in eight years, so get of your hatemongering and join the party for Change.

The guy hates a ghost and wants you to join the party of idiots.

Kenny: In and of itself, the photo isn’t incriminating; neither is his association with the Weathermen, but it’s just another brick in the wall, if you know what I mean.
I find it hypocritical that lefties regard reporting real news as “smear”, but when they put out fabricated stories about McCain and the President(phony National Guard story), it’s considered “real news”, and goes on and on in the MSM. In their topsy-turvy world, real news is “smear”(if it’s about a leftie) and real smear is “news”(if it’s about a Republican or conservative).

I think it shows the height of hypocrisy that Sara Palin will bring up vague relationships with 60s radicals and call it “palling with terrorists”. Yet they completely ignore the fact that She has supported and her Husband is a member of the Secessionist movement in Alaska. These people hate the U.S. so much that they don’t want to be part of it, yea that’s real Patriotic! How messed up would it be to have a president (when McCain keels over) who doesn’t even want to be a U.S. Citizen? Well if the Palins hate us so much that they want to leave I say let them move, and stop being such a hypocrite.

Kenny: In and of itself, the photo isn’t incriminating; neither is his association with the Weathermen, but it’s just another brick in the wall, if you know what I mean.
I find it hypocritical that lefties regard reporting real news as “smear”, but when they put out fabricated stories about McCain and the President(phony National Guard story), it’s considered “real news”, and goes on and on in the MSM. In their topsy-turvy world, real news is “smear”(if it’s about a leftie) and real smear is “news”(if it’s about a Republican or conservative).

BOTH stories are bunk. The McCain story is unsubstantiated rumor being pushed as fact. The Obama story is a weak association of these three people as a “pattern” to make Obama look bad as a terrorist sympathizer. Using someone else’s bad actions to justify OTHER bad actions is a terrible argument.

Lestat,

Be careful here. You’re on the brink of sounding suspiciously like Neiman has recently. It is NOT a rationally defensible position.

Yes Lestat, pay attention, if you respond rationally and civilly to a position offered by someone, especially by a Front Page Poster, Bat One will blindly defend them absent offering any facts whatsoever to support his attack, he’ll criticize you because he doesn’t like your tone, and even when you patiently detail why his observation was wrong, using exact quotations and diagramming the paragraph, he will still lie and defend his intimate Front Page bitch, because the facts and honesty are not part of his nature. He will even use it as a pretext to attack you or your children!

Bat One does not agree with Freedom of Speech or Assembly if he can use it to blindly defend the indefensible. He lost all my respect, he is just another nut case!

At the age of 17 Ayers was a student. Didn’t you ever espouse nonsense at that age. The man is a professor at the University of Illinois.

The trouble is that Ayers still spouts the same

nonsense

that he was spewing when he was setting bombs and aranging for his followers to assault police officers.

The only difference is that now Ayers uses his position at a publically funded university to shove that

nonsense

down the throats of college students and little kids in his special programs.

I think trying to tie Obama to the Weathermen is fruitless effort that looks too much like dirt digging, however justified the curiosity; HOWEVER, you don’t need to go there to have serious doubts around just what Obama is about.
For me, it is enough that he is endorsed by:

• Rev Wright
• Lois Farrakhan
• and now, the Black Panthers

Can you say militant black racism? (And before anyone starts the racist charge, I myself am black. I just call it like I see it.)

What is it about Obama that would attract people espousing radical Black politics? Ken Blackwell didn’t get this support. Michael Steele didn’t, so what gives?

If Obama is good enough for: Hezbollah, Hamas, Weatherman, Iranian, Syrian, Venezuelan, and Cuban despots; who am I to question such support!

All those peace loving individuals/groups wish us the best & a strong leader…….yeah right.

Obama sat quietly/timidly for years with HIS FAMILY listening to hate sermons (by “Rev” Wrong) and now he wants us to believe that he is the best thing for America.

I will not vote for someone because of his color, race, sex, religion, or age. Vote for experience, character, proven judgment and vision. America, choose wisely; our freedom and Nation is at stake.

You are ridiculous. At the age of 17 Ayers was a student. Didn’t you ever espouse nonsense at that age. The man is a professor at the University of Illinois. Do you query every faculty member you meet on a panel whether or not they wet their pants on the first day of school? Your beloved John McCain at 26 was guilty of fraternizing with the enemy, if you want to use that kind of punitive, deceitful, cynical, vindictive, vicious logic.

This is an interesting piece of news.
The ultra-liberal Canadians dont even want Bill Ayres, article link:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/573462

Now we know that Obama is an economic terrorist. Remember his motto: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” So, Obama extended and deepened the recession just so he could exploit the fear to get his $9 Trillion deficit passed through congress. Everything else, was just a head fake. We were doing http://backgroundsearch.com on Candidate Obama, but President Obama is weakening our country by destroying our economy. Then, the USA can be conquered by force.

A series of truely scary thoughts. I was in Chicago for the 68 convention where I saw the effect of terrorists in the street. While the government concentrated on a it stupid, hamfist and ultimately unscessful prosecution of the Chicago Seven ringleaders in front of a aging “respected” federal judge (who was even more incompetent than OJ’s first judge), the Weatherman were becoming increasingly violent. Ayres and his wife were violent and vicious Weatherman thugs. Read their own violent words in the Evergreen Press, Weatherman. One of the ugliest aspects of their descent into evil is their celebration of the Manson murders. Dorhn, Ayres wife, is so unhinged and narristic that she celebrated the murder and mutilation of Sharon Tate. She reveals in a manson woman sticking a fork into the belly of the dead or dying pregnant Sharon Tate. This is the response we expect from serial killer–not a woman who is in the social and legal elite of Chicago. These once and future weatherman hide behind the fact that the young don;t understand that they were monsters. Today, Ayres and Dorhn act joyous unrepentant while telling the Connie Chungs and Diane Sawyers how innocent and harmless they were only wishing they could have done more in the 60′s in their pathetic effort to destroy our republic. They try to make their own history sound harmless and clinical. Well, Ayres and Dorhn were not sweet and innocent. They were vile repulsive and dark. Those who disagree with me say that today’s Chicago establishment embraces them. Well, that is no answer. Ayres has been protected by the big corporate money his father controls as well as the support of his left-wing academic friends. I know where that family comes from. My wife even gave the Ayres family a dog she owned when Bill was still a kid. Professionally and ethically, I have been trying to get my alma mater to fire Dorhn because (1) she is running a Northwestern University Law School juvenile justice center despite the fact that she remains an enthusiastic unrepentant terrorist. I have been unsucessful in asking the Dean of the Law School to remove her until she repudiates her past. The Dean seems to be immune to the idea that a law school is supposed to foster and protect and defend the rule of law. Willingly or not, he bows to the Weatherman’s clout acting as if he would comfortable teaching Russian politicians reasons for crushing Georgia. He is more interested in donations from the Chicago estalishment friendly to Dorhn than in potecting Northwestern’s honor or integrity.

What is my point? This, Obama, the Harvard law grad, knew and knows all of this. He drove wilfully blind into the heart of Chicago society with its left wing corruption. He embraced these thugs who were as corrupt, evil and violent as any Capone gangster. He wants all of us to be wilfully blind to his blind ambition. Yet, based on his naked thirst for power, he is as dangerous as Richard Nixon. There is nothing in the presidency to suggest that if a person embraced evil before being elected to office that he would stop embracing evil while in office.

What’s your point “ME”?

Comments are free. Smear campaigns and the politics of personal destruction are cheap. And facts are sacred.
There has been a sudden spate of blog items and newspaper articles, mainly in the British press, linking Barack Obama to a former member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974. The former Weatherman, William Ayers, now holds the position of distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Although never convicted of any crime, he told the New York Times in September 2001, “I don’t regret setting bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.

Is there anything here that raises questions about Obama’s judgment or is this just another example of guilt by association?
The Facts

The first article in the mainstream press linking Obama to Ayers appeared in the London Daily Mail on February 2. It was written by Peter Hitchens, the right-wing brother of the left-wing firebrand turned Iraq war supporter, Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens cited the Ayers connection to bolster his argument that Obama is “far more radical than he would like us to know.”

The Hitchens piece was followed by a Bloomberg article last week pointing to the Ayers connection as support for Hillary Clinton’s contention that Obama might not be able to withstand the “Republican attack machine.” Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and the State Department, predicted that the Republicans would seize on the Ayers case, and other Chicago relationships, to “bludgeon Obama’s presidential aspirations into the dust.”

The London Sunday Times joined the chorus this weekend by reporting that Republicans were “out to crush Barack by painting him as a leftwinger with dubious support”.

The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board. Ayers did not respond to e-mails and telephone calls requesting clarification of the relationship. Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:

Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.
In the short term, the person who has most to gain by speculation about Obama’s acquaintance with a former terrorist is Hillary Clinton. The former First Lady likes to present herself as “tested and vetted” after years of exposure to Republican attacks, in contrast to Obama, a relative newcomer to hardscrabble presidential politics. Such arguments resonate with Johnson, the counterterrorism expert, who told me that he is a Clinton supporter, although not involved with the campaign.

But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one. As Newsday pointed out, Clinton has her own, also tenuous, Weatherman connection. Her husband commuted the sentences of a couple of convicted Weather Underground members, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, shortly before leaving office in January 2001. Which is worse: pardoning a convicted terrorist or accepting a campaign contribution from a former Weatherman who was never convicted?

Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board. The president of the Woods Fund, Deborah Harrington, said he had been selected for the board because of his solid academic credentials and “passion for social justice.”

GET THE FACTS! FactCheck.org; OpenSecrets.org
RealClearPolitics

I must add that Rob did not suggest any crimes in his thread, he was simply saying a patern may exist of very unsavory associations. That was valid and informative as have been several intelligent responses.

That is a cop out. He is publishing irresponsible reports and is using headlines that are irresponsible. He is actively participating in this smear.

James D. Hunter on October 6, 2008 at 08:29 am spews total B.S.

…and getting the troops out of Iraq.

Translation: losing the war in Iraq by retreating from the terrorists.
I’m sure his agenda is shared by both the Weathermen and the Islamofascists.

Both Obama and Clinton admired Alinsky’s appeal for small-d democracy…

You’re joking, right? Alinsky was a hardcore Marxist.
Reread “the dictatorship of the proletariat”.

Jezreel: Can’t wait to read your whitewash of Obama’s connection to Saul Alinsky.

Middle name arguments!!!

BAAGAAHHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Say what you will about the Bush and Bin Laden family connections, at least George Bush shot it out with the Republic of Texas secessionists down in Ft. Davis. The Prophet Sarah Palin actually appears on videos distributed by the Alaska Independence Party (“Alaska First !”), fellow travellers with the ROT, Chechan terrorists and other radical separatist groups across the globe (check out their website links).
Thank God for NSPD 51 and Vice President Cheney: no way will a patriot like him relinquish his office to the radical Pentacostal cleric and her dismember the USA plans.
God Bless America and God bless this website for branding the mavericks for what they are.

Ernestly,
Dwight Whayle

I am a diaabled vietnam vet ayers is a trator who should be spending the rest of his life in jail

Since the Weathermen, Ayres and Dohrn, were “anti” American only in the case of opposing the government’s prosecution of its unwarranted war in VietNam, and are all therefore heroes, I can only applaud Senator Obama’s courage in defiance and contempt of conservatives’ bigoted opinions in participating in a university-sponsored intellectual discussion.

Wing Chun:

LOVE the avatar. Ted Kord Lives!

To me, to lie is to say something deliberately known to be false with the specific intention of misleading the other party. If that is even remotely close to a working definition, then you have failed utterly to establish anything other than the fact that I disagreed with you. You certainly haven’t justified your accusation that I am a liar.

I provided clear documentary evidence of what that person was saying, I pointed you directly to the bold type face he used highlighting the words that International Law . . . was the supreme law of the land. Yet, you did deliberately choose to ignore the documnented evidence, the clear, uncontestable evidence that that person provided, so that is to deliberately lie about a proven fact. Not a disagreement, not his word over mine, not something subjective, but the clear documented facts proved he was falsely asserting, at least by the words he changed to bold type face, that International Law was the Supreme Law of the Land and you said he did not assert what the evidence clearly proved he did. Now what else is that but a deliberate lie?

Despite the late hour, I am very much inclined to tell you exactly where you can put that “respect” you mentioned (yeah, right!).

You are free to do what you choose to do, and when there exists clear evidence of a lie, like your attempt to mislead people about this issue, I am free to expose that lie! I will never, not ever submit to lies and deny truth, when I can clearly discern the difference.

You should be deeply, deeply embarassed by your failure to tell the difference between when someone is merely explaining what others have said, and actually advocating a position.

The clear documentary evidence proved you lied then and are lying now! That is what liberals do, they insist ‘damn the evidence, are you going to believe them or your lying eyes?” You highlighted two comments that were separated by many words and could not be logically or honestly connected, they said that International Law was the Supreme Law of the land. You offered no explanation that you were showing me what others said, but were not advocating that position, so I was left to believe you were once again asserting that very thing. You almost got me again, you said above you were only explaining what others said, thus for a moment I thought, okay Neiman, he was not advocating that position at all and you made a mistake, apologize. Yep, I almost did except for one fact, that paragraph did not say in any way shape, manner or form that International Law was the Supreme Law of the land. So, they were not saying what it appeared you were asserting they were saying, they in matter of absolute fact agreed with my position, in that the Constitution and federal laws and international treaties were only supreme over state courts and judges, not the Constitution.

The words Constitution, federal laws and International law are all separated by ‘and,’ which makes them sequential, not all in one. Then the paragraph clearly stated that these three things were supreme over local courts and judges, not the Constitution or the land.

I want to be fair and open to the idea I can just plain be wrong about some matters. I wanted to believe you were not actually saying the International Law was the Supreme Law of the Land, I wanted to believe I misunderstood and had ranted and raved about a non-issue, it was all a simple misundertsanding, I really hoped that was the case. I understand that in human communication we can often lack clarity, which is why I went after the matter so often and so hard, to try an discover through having you reply multiple times where I made my mistake. But, the decision you chose and insisted I read did not say International Law was the Supreme Law of the Land at all, though your changing the type face to bold made it appear that way, and only because I read it carefully and diagrammed it to try and discern its true meaning, did I realize it did not say that at all.

I tried on several occasions to offer you an attempt to make a clarification and I even offered my apology if I had misread or misunderstood your words. But, you would seem to clarify it and then by using things like that court decision and the bold type face, you kept seeming to take it back and advocate just the opposite.

Perhaps, if there was any misunderstanding, I realize you would be loathe to admit error, but perhaps your communication of your real position was faulty. Perhaps, had you read and accepted my offer to correct my position if you would clarify yours, there would have been no misunderstanding at all. I have examined myself, tried to look for any escape by finding my error, but the facts would not allow me to admit to a lie!

Rob, please tell me you have more to attack Mr. Obama with besides this drivvel. He is invited by the University of Illinois to appear on a panel at a conference and now he is supporting the Weatherman. This is the best you can do? Really?

Stick to your dayjob, because you suck at attack politics.

Jack,

andydakota offers:

when the swiftboating begins, we will be prepared.

What? Barrack H. Obama was too young to have been on that boat with John Kerry in Cambodia over Christmas of 1968. Nor has Barrack H. Obama written himself up for any decorations, nor refused to release his compete and unexpurgated military records. Then again, Barrack H. Obama has not served his country in uniform, and has less of a record of accomplishment than Kerry did (does, for that matter). I seem to recall the Kerry campaign claimed to be ready to answer any and all such difficult questions as well…

I have missed your terrible and often very funny puns,

Thank you! I wouldn’t want any of you to think I was putting on Ayres!

Jack,

Neiman,

You might find it helpful to address your remarks to the specific individual for whose attention they are intended. It’s part of what is known as common courtesy… at least in come circles. Some of your remarks above are obviously directed at me, some at Ken, and the rest, hell! who knows.

For example, I don’t believe that I mentioned anything at all about treaties or international law in any of my comments last night. As I said at the time, if you went back and actually re-read the entire thread, carefully, you’d see as much. My only intent was to try and save you from the ignominy of your own late night foolishness and your apparent jealousy over who does, and who does not post on the front page.

Its bad enough that you called my integrity into question, calling me a liar with no grounds for having done so other than a wizened sense of pique. Not that the rest of your intemperate diatribe was any more justified. But that was yesterday’s news.

Whatever it was that caused you to be so doddered and mistaken in what was being said and by whom, lack of sleep, lack of medication, lack of prune juice, do yourself a favor and get caught up on it.

Get back when you’ve figured out who’s who… and what’s what.

They say the the unions are good and then when you look at what they have done for the auto industry ,they put them on a path were they could not compete with the rest of the world and we lost are position as the no 1 auto maker. They should not have let have any unions in any government jobs as there is no competition in many of the fields to keep price in check. Only one bridge, one railroad line, one police department. If you work for the government you are surposed to be working the people. Richie-Casino